MEASURING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DRUG

ADDICTION TREATMENT

HEARING
BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES
OF THE

COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
MARCH 30, 2004

Serial No. 108–222
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON

96–744 PDF

:

2004

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800
Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 5011

Sfmt 5011

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DOUG OSE, California
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
RON LEWIS, Kentucky
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
Columbia
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
——— ———
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
———
——— ———
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
——— ———
(Independent)
MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director
DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director
ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian
TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk
PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE

ON

CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY

AND

HUMAN RESOURCES

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JOHN L. MICA, Florida
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
DOUG OSE, California
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia
C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Columbia
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio
——— ———

EX OFFICIO
TOM DAVIS, Virginia

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. MARC WHEAT, Staff Director
NICOLE GARRETT, Clerk
TONY HAYWOOD, Minority Counsel

(II)

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 5904

Sfmt 5904

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

CONTENTS
Page

Hearing held on March 30, 2004 ............................................................................
Statement of:
Curie, Charles, Administrator, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; and Nora D. Volkow, National Institute on Drug
Abuse, National Institutes of Health ..........................................................
McLellan, Thomas, Ph.D., director, Treatment Research Institute, Philadelphia, PA; Charles O’Keeffe, Virginia Commonwealth University,
Richmond, VA; Karen Freeman-Wilson, executive director, National
Drug Court Institute, Alexandria, VA; Jerome Jaffe, M.D., professor,
University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD; Catherine Martens, senior
vice president, Second Genesis, Silver Spring, MD; and Hendree Jones,
Ph.D., research director, Center for Addiction and Pregnancy, Baltimore, MD .......................................................................................................
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Maryland, prepared statement of ............................................................
Curie, Charles, Administrator, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, prepared statement of ...............................................
Freeman-Wilson, Karen, executive director, National Drug Court Institute, Alexandria, VA, prepared statement of ..............................................
Jaffe, Jerome, M.D., professor, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD,
prepared statement of ...................................................................................
Jones, Hendree, Ph.D., research director, Center for Addiction and Pregnancy, Baltimore, MD, prepared statement of ...........................................
Martens, Catherine, senior vice president, Second Genesis, Silver Spring,
MD, prepared statement of ..........................................................................
McLellan, Thomas, Ph.D., director, Treatment Research Institute, Philadelphia, PA, prepared statement of .............................................................
O’Keeffe, Charles, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA,
prepared statement of ...................................................................................
Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Indiana, prepared statement of ...............................................................
Volkow, Nora D., National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes
of Health, prepared statement of .................................................................

1

12

44
9
15
74
83
96
88
46
56
3
25

(III)

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 5904

Sfmt 5904

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 5904

Sfmt 5904

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

MEASURING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DRUG
ADDICTION TREATMENT
TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY AND
HUMAN RESOURCES,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room
2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark E. Souder (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Souder, Cummings, Blackburn and
Davis.
Staff present: Marc Wheat, staff director and chief counsel; Alena
Guagenti, legislative assistant; Nicole Garrett, clerk; Tony Haywood, minority counsel; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk.
Mr. SOUDER. The subcommittee will come to order. Good afternoon, and I thank you all for coming. Today we will continue our
subcommittee study of drug addiction treatment, or as President
Bush refers to it in the National Drug Control Strategy, ‘‘Healing
America’s Drug Users.’’ It is estimated that at least 7 million people in the United States need treatment for drug addiction. Getting
effective help to those 7 million people and getting them to accept
that help is one of America’s greatest public health challenges.
Everyone agrees that we should help drug addicts get effective
treatment. What is far more difficult is to find a consensus on how
to measure what effective treatment is, but it is vital that we find
that consensus because in an era of tight budgets, we must be able
to focus our limited resources on the most effective treatment
methods.
Last year, President Bush took what I believe to be a very significant step in that direction when he unveiled the Access to Recovery Initiative. Beginning this fiscal year, the President’s initiative will provide $100 million to the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], to supplement existing
treatment programs. That amount of money is intended to pay for
drug treatment for most Americans who want it but can’t get it,
many of whom can’t afford the cost of treatment and don’t have insurance to cover it.
If fully funded at $200 million per year as requested by the
President, it could help up to 100,000 more addicts get treatment.
The program also has enormous potential to open up Federal assistance to a much broader range of treatment providers than are
used today. Through the use of vouchers, the initiative will support
SUBCOMMITTEE

ON

(1)

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

2
and encourage variety and choice in treatment and could open up
and support a significant number of new options for drug users to
get treatment. Finally, and most important for our purpose today,
the emphasis on accountability should help us make significant
progress in the most difficult issues of drug treatment policy, finding and encouraging programs that truly work, helping and healing
the addicted, as well as ensuring a meaningful and effective return
on taxpayers’ dollars spent on treatment.
Earlier this month, SAMHSA published a request for applications spelling out the qualifications for programs to administer the
new funds and inviting those programs to apply. The RFA, request
for application, contains new performance measures designed to
help us determine what programs are working for the patients and
which ones aren’t. I am especially looking forward to discussing Access to Recovery Initiative with the person most responsible for implementing it, my fellow Hoosier, SAMHSA administrator Charlie
Curie.
With SAMHSA up for reauthorization this year, I’m also eager
to discuss with him the agency’s plans for the future of drug treatment. We are also pleased to be joined by Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse at the National Institutes of Health, which is the Federal Government’s pre-eminent
authority on the nature of drug addiction and the science of drug
treatment. We are pleased to be joined in the second panel by a
number of experts in the field of drug addiction treatment.
We welcome Dr. A. Thomas McLellan, director of the Treatment
Research Institute in Philadelphia, PA; Mr. Charles O’Keeffe at the
Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, VA; the Honorable Karen Freeman-Wilson, executive director of the National
Drug Court Institute in Alexandria, VA; Dr. Jerome Jaffe, professor
at the University of Maryland in Baltimore, MD; Ms. Catherine
Martens, senior vice president of Second Genesis in Silver Spring,
MD; and Dr. Hendree Jones, research director at the Center For
Addiction and Pregnancy in Baltimore, MD. We look forward to
discussing these issues with you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

3

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

4

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

5

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

6

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

7
Mr. SOUDER. Now I will now yield to our distinguished ranking
member, Mr. Cummings, for his opening statement.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing on measuring the effectiveness of drug
treatment. I have often said it is one thing to treat drug addiction.
It is another thing to be effective in treatment. As you know, Mr.
Chairman, drugs kill 20,000 Americans each year, and drug abuse
and the illegal drug trade contribute to most of the violent crime
and social problems we experience here in the United States. Providing effective treatment to people who have become drug dependent is necessary to reduce the demand for illegal drugs that drives
consumption and fuels crime and social dysfunction. The President
has proposed substantial increases in drug treatment funding, including increases for the substance abuse prevention and drug
treatment block grant, which accounts for 40 percent of public
funding for drug treatment, and the new Access to Recovery Voucher Initiative for which State applications are being accepted this
spring.
Under both, the block grant and Access to Recovery, drug treatment funding is being accompanied by new requirements for outcomes measurement and reporting in an effort to increase accountability and effectiveness in drug treatment programs funded with
taxpayers’ dollars. I have often said that the one thing that Republicans and Democrats appear to agree on is that the taxpayers’ dollar must be spent effectively and efficiently. These are appropriate
goals in addition to expanding the capacity of the drug treatment
system to ensure that treatment is accessible to those in need. We
should seek to ensure that the treatment we fund is the very best
that it can be. The value of treatment cannot be overstated. Numerous studies attest to the effectiveness of treatment in reducing
not only the consumption of drugs and alcohol, but also the social
harms associated with addiction, including violent crime, property
crime, unemployment, risky health behaviors contributing to HIV
and hepatitis infection and so on.
And yet, public funding for drug treatment has been derided by
some critics who view drug treatment programs as a revolving door
for addicts who lack a moral commitment to abstinence. Addiction
research tells us, however, that relapse is a component of the disease of addiction and a part of the recovery process for most recovering addicts. Moreover, temporary abstinence and reduced consumption are beneficial for the patient and the community in
which the patient lives and treatment contributes to these intermediate steps as well as the ultimate goal of permanent abstinence. The National Institute on Drug Abuse publication, ‘‘Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment,’’ a research-based guide, cites
several conservative estimates showing that every $1 invested in
addiction treatment programs yield a return of between $4 and $7
in reduced drug-related crime, criminal justice costs and theft
alone. When savings related to health care are included, total savings can exceed costs by a ratio of 12 to 1. The guide further states
that drug addiction is a complex illness that nonetheless is just as
treatable as other chronic diseases in which patient behavior is a
factor, including diabetes, asthma and hypertension.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

8
Evaluations of treatment programs must take into account not
only the complexity of the illness, but also the very different life
circumstances patients in a variety of treatment settings in which
patients receive treatment. The diversity and types of treatment
programs poses a challenge to efforts to establish criteria that will
allow for meaningful comparisons. Applying criteria in a manner
that is fair and that yields useful evaluations is critical. We have
two very distinguished panels of witnesses who will offer their insights on this important subject today, and I am happy that my
State of Maryland is so well represented.
We are fortunate to have both NIDA and SAMHSA before us on
this panel. And I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, in particular
for allowing Dr. Hendree Jones and Catherine Martens to testify
today as minority witnesses on the second panel. Dr. Jones is research director for the Center For Addiction and Pregnancy at
Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore. Ms. Martens
is senior vice president of Second Genesis, a therapeutic communities program in Silver Spring, MD. Taking into account the perspectives of treatment providers is critical to the development of
evaluation methods that will yield meaningful and useful information, leading to more effective treatment. And I am glad that we
will hear these important perspectives today.
With that said, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the testimony of our distinguished witnesses and I hope that this hearing
helps to move us forward toward the goal of reducing drug abuse
and dependency in this great country. With that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings follows:]

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

9

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

10

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

11

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

12
Mr. SOUDER. I thank you for your statement. I ask unanimous
consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to submit written
statements and questions for the hearing record and that any answers to written questions provided by the witnesses also be included in the record. And without objection, it is so ordered. I also
ask unanimous consent that all exhibits, documents and other materials referred to by Members and the witnesses may be included
in the hearing record and that all Members be permitted to revise
and extend their remarks. Without objection, it is so ordered. Now
it is the policy of this committee and the full Government Reform
Committee to swear in our witnesses, so if you would stand and
raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. SOUDER. Let the record show that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. I apologize. I wasn’t paying attention. Do
you have an opening statement?
Mrs. BLACKBURN. No.
Mr. SOUDER. I was so intent on reading the materials in front
of me, I apologize. We will start with Mr. Curie.
STATEMENTS OF CHARLES CURIE, ADMINISTRATOR, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; AND NORA D. VOLKOW, NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON
DRUG ABUSE, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

Dr. CURIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. Good afternoon. I am Charles Curie, Administrator of
the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, part of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. At this time, I ask
that my formal written testimony be included in the record of this
hearing. In the time I have with you today, I will describe how
SAMHSA is working to promote and provide effective substance
abuse treatment to people nationwide, and I will describe how we
are measuring the effectiveness of those efforts. The importance of
substance abuse treatment prevention services is undeniable. And
I am pleased to be appearing here today with my colleague, Dr.
Nora Volkow of NIDA, where partnership is critical in us accomplishing that goal.
According to our 2002 national survey on drug use and health,
of the 22.8 million people aged 12 and older who needed treatment
for alcohol or drugs, only 2.3 million of them received specialized
care. Over 85 percent of people with untreated alcohol or drug
problems said they didn’t think they needed care. Of the 1.2 million
people who felt they did need treatment, 446,000 tried but were
unable to get treatment.
The result, continued addiction, lost health, employment and
education and often criminal involvement. That is a huge human
and economic cost. Yet we know Federal investments in substance
abuse treatment and prevention are cost effective and beneficial.
Treatment is effective. Recovery is real. SAMHSA’s national treatment improvement evaluation study found a 50 percent reduction
in drug use 1 year after treatment. It reported up to an 80 percent
reduction in criminal activity, a 43 percent drop in homelessness
and a nearly 20 percent rise in employment. Our findings are corroborated by other SAMHSA and NIDA studies. We are also work-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

13
ing to prevent substance abuse in the first place. The President set
aggressive goals to reduce youth drug use in America.
With effective prevention efforts, rates are dropping; 11 percent
in the past 2 years among 8th, 10th and 12th-grade students, according to NIDA’s most recent monitoring the future survey. That
is roughly 400,000 fewer teen drug users in these 2 years. And that
means the President’s 2-year goal has been exceeded. Let me remind everyone what SAMHSA is all about.
In contrast to NIH, SAMHSA is not a research agency. We don’t
conduct or fund research. SAMHSA is a services agencies. That
means taking our work and our substance abuse prevention and
treatment services programs to where people are in communities
nationwide. That’s where our programs, policies and budget priorities are driven by the vision of a life in the community for everyone. That’s why they’re driven by a mission of building resilience
and facilitating recovery one person at a time. And that is why
each and every one of our program outcomes is being measured
against the yardstick of recovery, resilience and that life in the
community for every man, woman and child. Our vision and mission are aligned with those of President Bush and Health and
Human Services Secretary, Tommy Thompson. We appreciate their
leadership and support for our vision of a life in the community for
everyone. Three concepts at the heart of today’s hearing guide our
work: Accountability, capacity and effectiveness [ACE]. We assess
ACE by gathering and analyzing data about our programs. But we
are not collecting data for the sake of collecting data.
Today we are asking why we are collecting the data and whether
they measure outcomes that are meaningful for real people working to make recovery a reality. If they don’t, they simply won’t be
collected. That’s why we have been working with the States to
change the ways in which we assess our discretionary and block
grant programs. It is an approach that focuses questions and expectations on success and substance abuse treatment and prevention, measured in real-time outcomes for real people. The result
has been the identification of and agreement on seven outcome domains, the very outcomes that help people obtain and sustain recovery.
First and foremost is abstinence from drug use and alcohol
abuse. Without that, recovery and a life in the community are impossible. Two other domains, increased access to services and increased retention and treatment, relate directly to the treatment
process itself. We measure whether our programs are helping people who want and need treatment get the care they need, over the
duration they need it and with the social supports that are most
beneficial to each individual.
The remaining four domains focus on sustaining treatment and
recovery, increasing employment or a return to school, decreasing
criminal justice involvement, increasing in stabilized family and
living conditions and an increase in support from and
connectiveness to the community. These measures are true measures of recovery. They measure whether our programs are helping
people achieve and sustain recovery. By focusing our program outcome data collection on just these seven domains over time, we can
foster continuous program and policy improvement. We can know

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

14
whether our efforts to move new scientific knowledge from NIDA
to the front lines of service delivery or science to services efforts
are working for people.
SAMHSA’s addiction technology transfer centers are an example.
They encourage the adoption of evidence based practices by alcohol
and drug abuse treatment programs and providers. We work with
NIDA to disseminate new knowledge specifically related to the results of NIDA research. We will know whether these efforts are
paying dividends in reaching recovery and promoting and abstinence from drugs, giving people an opportunity to obtain sustained
recoveries at the heart of the President’s Access to Recovery Initiative. That is the first place we will use the seven domains to assess
our outcomes.
As you know and has been indicated, Access to Recovery is a new
substance abuse treatment grant program funded at $100 million
in fiscal year 2004, and for which the President is seeking $200
million in fiscal year 2005. ATR fosters consumer choice, improved
service quality and increases treatment capacity by providing individuals with vouchers to pay for substance abuse treatment they
need. At the same time, SAMHSA has been working with the
States to transform its substance abuse prevention and treatment
block grant program into a performance-based system. To begin,
States will be asked to voluntarily submit data on the seven domains as we integrate performance accountability into the system.
SAMHSA has invested significant resources to help States build
their State data infrastructures. We will work with them to promote better accountability not just for where the dollars are being
spent, but how effectively those dollars are being used.
By focusing program measurement and management on the
seven outcome domains, SAMHSA, States and communities and
this subcommittee can gain a powerful tool to guide the policies
and program directions of today and tomorrow. For the first time,
we can paint a picture of the effectiveness of drug treatment as it
relates to recovery. We will ensure that our programs remain focused on the real-time needs of people working toward recovery
and a life in the community. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee. I will be pleased to respond to any
questions at the appropriate time. Thank you.
Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Curie follows:]

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

15

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

16

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

17

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

18

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

19

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

20

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

21

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

22

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

23
Mr. SOUDER. We will hear from Dr. Nora Volkow, Director of the
National Institute for Drug Abuse at NIH.
Ms. VOLKOW. Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting the National Institute on Drug Abuse to join with our colleagues at
SAMHSA and others to participate in this very important hearing.
I am pleased to be here at my very first hearing before Congress.
What I would like to do today is share with you what science is
teaching us about the chronic relapsing nature of addiction and the
impact it has had on how we treat patients and how we measure
treatment effectiveness. Every one of us in this room is here because we want to do something about the tremendous burden that
drug abuse has on our society. Illicit drug use costs our Nation
$161 billion a year. But that number is very small compared to the
impact that drugs can have on individuals, families and communities. Drug abuse can lead to crime, domestic violence, child
abuse, among others. It is also a leading factor for many diseases,
including HIV-AIDS, and hepatitis.
Fortunately, our investments in biomedical research to improve
the health of all Americans are paying off especially how we approach and treat addiction. Research shows that addiction is a
chronic relapsing disorder associated with long-lasting changes in
the brain that can affect all aspects of a person’s life. New advances are beginning to increase our understanding of the developmental nature of addiction. Addiction is a disease that starts in
adolescence and sometimes even in childhood. The urgency to combat substance abuse and addiction is highlighted by the numbers;
2.9 million 12 to 17-year-old individuals are currently using illicit
drugs. This is a time when the brain is undergoing major changes
in both structure and function. If we do not intervene early, drug
problems can last a lifetime.
For this reason, NIDA is encouraging new research such that pediatricians and other primary care physicians have the tools, skills
and knowledge to screen every patient as early as possible. We are
also working with our colleagues from SAMHSA and others to rapidly bring new treatments to providers. For example, a little over
a year ago with the help of many of you in this room, we were able
to bring the new medication buprenorphine to qualified physicians.
For the first time, doctors can treat patients who are addicted to
opiates such as heroin and Oxycontin in their own offices. Over 3
decades of research demonstrate that treatment works. We have
summarized these findings in one of our most popular publications
to date, the principles of drug addiction treatment, commonly referred to as the Blue Book. This Blue Book has been distributed
to over 12,000 providers and provides the basic principles that research studies have shown to be necessary for successful treatment.
As with other chronic illnesses, treatment for drug addiction in
most cases is a long-term process. In fact, the effectiveness of treatment for addiction is similar to that of other chronic relapsing disorders such as diabetes, asthma, hypertension and heart disease
and many forms of cancer. Indeed, treatment compliance, drop out
rates and relapse are similar for all of these chronic diseases.
The chronic nature of drug addiction dictates the need for ongoing care. The importance of this strategy is illustrated by stories
of after care in criminal justice settings. Studies in California and

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

24
Delaware have shown that when treating drug abusers while they
are in prison and continuing to provide treatment and other services while they transition to the community reduces drug use by 50
to 70 percent. It also reduces the likelihood that their return to
prison by about 50 percent.
However, without the after-care component, the effects of treatment largely disappear. In addition, because drug addiction is associated with disruption across multiple dimensions of a person’s life,
treatment requires that not just the drug use but also its consequences be treated, which can include medical complications such
as HIV-AIDS and hepatitis, mental illness such as depression, anxiety, suicide, criminal justice involvement, unemployment and problems with family and social functioning among others.
Conceptualizing drug addiction as a chronic relapsing disease
that requires ongoing treatment and that affects multiple dimensions of an individual’s life that need to be addressed for recovery
will require that we change the way we measure treatment effectiveness. We particularly applaud SAMHSA for focusing on the
multiple dimensions of drug abuse outcomes because this is consistent with our scientific understanding of the complexities of this illness. Like other areas of health care, standardized measures of
drug abuse treatment effectiveness have not yet been developed
and I commend this committee for addressing this important topic.
Thank you very much. I would be happy to answer any questions
you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Volkow follows:]

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

25

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

26

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

27

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

28

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

29

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

30

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

31

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

32

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

33

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

34
Mr. SOUDER. I thank you both for your testimony. I believe your
statement was very clear, Mr. Curie, but I want to ask it again for
the record because as the administration moved in to several of
these new initiatives, one of the most common questions was, were
new grantees going to be treated differently in accountability than
previous grantees? As I understood your statement, you said
whether or not it was discretionary or block granted, you were
looking for a continuity of measurement where all would be measured in similar ways?
Dr. CURIE. That is correct. We are able to operationalize Access
to Recovery and we are asking States or tribal entities who are responding to that request for applications [RFA] to demonstrate how
they will either entice or assure measurement from providers who
are eligible providers to receive the voucher. At the same time, as
we move ahead with performance measures on the block grant and
other targeting capacity expansion grants, we are looking at the
seven domains of common measurements to be required of all
grantees. The primary reason is there has been consensus in the
field that these seven domains represent recovery and represent
measurement of someone who is in recovery, and that is really the
goal of all of our services that we are funding.
Mr. SOUDER. Dr. Volkow just talked in her written testimony
about the impact of comprehensive treatment. And in the written
testimony, it also says that in the studies in Delaware and California, that offenders who are treated in prison are less likely, if they
have comprehensive treatment, to end up back in prison. But if
they do not receive after care despite receiving in prison treatment
they have poorer outcomes. My question to you is, are we interconnecting the different programs at this point in the Department
of Justice in what you are doing and what can we do to encourage
more of that type of cooperation? I know, for example, in the Fort
Wayne area, we both know well, they have Justice Department
grants for continuum of care.
And Congressman Davis has a bill that I support on housing
questions. But are we seeing these things coming together, because
so many of us see people who have been in a treatment program
and they go right back in and the question is how can we integrate
and look at this more holistically from the Federal Government
level.
Dr. CURIE. I think the answer is yes, we are making great
progress in that area. We do have joint programs with the Department of Justice. For example, we are funding the treatment components of reentry courts. Fort Wayne is an example of a reentry
court. And we have an understanding, a relationship with Justice,
that our responsibility is to fund community-based treatment for
individuals who are coming out of the justice system, and to collaborate on drug courts. And again, we have a commitment between both departments to continue to foster that relationship. I
think we are all in agreement that the treatment and recovery support systems on the community based side of things need to be integrated, and you don’t want to see a separate criminal justice and
community-based system of care. But if we truly are working for
individuals to have that life in the community, it needs to be part
of the overall public health focus.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

35
Mr. SOUDER. Before I followup with Dr. Volkow on that particular question, when you give block grant money to the States, is
there any guidance to them that says we want this integrated with
the drug courts, with other reentry programs and not just OK, we
are pursuing this thing at the Federal level and these different
agencies and you’re pursuing this?
Dr. CURIE. For the block grant there are various directives and
statute that are on the block grant. The States do have a lot of latitude. That’s the very thing we are examining as we move to PPGs
is how we can measure and incent, if you will, a system with further integration.
The other thing I might mention, there are block grant dollars,
I know, in a wide range of States that are going toward treating
individuals who are coming out of the criminal justice system. Also
with Access to Recovery, nothing precludes the State, in fact, we
have encouraged this one scenario, a State or a tribal organization
may want to use the vouchers in connection with the drug court
or the reentry court program and actually begin their voucher program with that specialty population. And we anticipate we are
going to see those types of models proposed.
Mr. SOUDER. Dr. Volkow, have you seen any of these integrated
studies? Are you setting up any tracking to see whether or not we
are getting the results when we have a drug court, a reentry program and a prison treatment program or community-funded program? Are you able to see enough of these that you can start to
research it and to see whether what was suggested in the State
studies might, in fact, be true?
Ms. VOLKOW. One of our priority areas is how to actually develop
knowledge that optimizes the way that we bring the prisoners back
into the community. We have a strategy that, for lack of a better
term, we are calling an ‘‘NIDA goes to jail’’ and it has multiple
components. One of them is to generate the knowledge and to create the infrastructure. One of the things that we have started is
what we call the Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies
[CJDATS] and these are seven of our criminal justice systems
working with academic centers to develop research protocols to optimize our reentry of the prisoner back into the community. Another component is to interact with SAMHSA, and also to interact
with the Department of Justice to bring education about the signs
of addiction and the treatments that are available. So that is the
educational component.
And finally, the other aspects we are working with, which we are
also addressing is the issue on research that unfortunately is common in the substance abuse area. Many of the individuals that end
up in prison are frequently associated with co-morbid mental illnesses.
So that is another area where we don’t have sufficient research.
And in parallel to this initiative, there is also parallel one for the
criminal juvenile offenders.
Mr. SOUDER. Can I ask one supplemental question? I know all
the members are interested in this as well. I didn’t mention, and
nor did you, the Labor Department or the Education Department.
Are we looking at any attempts to look at vocational education and/

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

36
or employment as part of this rehab where that would be integrated as well?
Dr. CURIE. Yes. In fact, one of the major domains, employment
and education which reflect a dimension of recovery, we are looking
at collaborating with labor. We are looking at potentially—I know
a reentry program was proposed by the President which would be
focused on just that and with the efforts between Justice and HHS
at this point around bringing individuals back into the community
to succeed. It would make a lot of sense to be engaged in that process to make sure we have a comprehensive approach. Also on a related side of the equation, on the mental health agenda side, we
have an action agenda around transforming the mental health system, which will address co-occurring disorders which has a clear
connect to addictive disorders. And with that, we have Labor at the
table collaborating with us around models that work to help people
gain employment.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Cummings.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you all very much for being here. Ms.
Volkow, tell me exactly what you mean—what is your definition of
after-care? You said it is important that you have after-care. And
I want to know what are the essential ingredients for what you
deem to be effective after-care?
Ms. VOLKOW. The after-care for someone who has been in jail or
after-care for any drug abusing person that ends up in a health
care facility seeking treatment.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Both?
Ms. VOLKOW. What it basically requires is that it starts, and this
is actually one of the things that has been clearly summarized in
the principles of drug addiction and what has been, there is consensus that in the initial reentry of the person you are focusing on
stopping the drug use while at the same time starting to engage
the patient on realizing what are the positive and negative aspects
of taking drugs. Once that individual recognizes his position on this
stance, he is taken to the next step, which is to teach that individual what are the actions that he needs to do in order to optimize
his chances to not take drugs.
So that is the first stage. Once that is achieved, the patient goes
into what we call after-care and the patient is released into the
community and that requires that there has to be followup and
there are several programs that can be utilized. There is nothing
like a recipe that works for everyone.
So the first thing that has to be realized is that the treatments
have to be tailored for the unique circumstance and characteristics
of the patient, and that will require that the several aspects that
SAMHSA is focusing on are addressed. You need to address not
just the substance abuse, but the integration of the individual and
the support of the community, which ideally should include the
family. And if the family doesn’t exist, what does the integration
require? If it is an adult, that they have employment. And if it is
a younger person, that they are able to continue in the educational
system.
At the same time, what science has taught us is that self-help
groups are usually very beneficial. And in certain instances, the no-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

37
tion of medication can help drug-addicted persons stay away from
drugs.
And finally, but not because it is least important, unfortunately
substance abuse is frequently coupled with morbid mental illness.
And if the issue of mental illness is not addressed, they are very
unlikely to succeed in getting that person out of drugs. That is
what the after-care entails, being able to monitor all of these different dimensions that have unfortunately been affected by the
drug addiction process.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I was waiting for you to say and you finally did
say it, a job is helpful, isn’t it?
Ms. VOLKOW. One of the things we have come to realize is that
we are human beings. One of the most important aspects that motivates our behavior is to be part of a group; to be part of a community, and to feel that we are appreciated and we can contribute to
that community. It is one of the most important aspects that motivates our actions in life. So when you bring a person into community and you make him feel he is part of it, you actually achieve
a great deal through that process.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Curie, you were with us in Fort Wayne?
Dr. CURIE. Yes, I was.
Mr. CUMMINGS. If you recall when we were in Fort Wayne with
the chairman, a lot of those judges came forward and talked about
how they were so upset that State law—that is what they were
talking about, I think—because somebody had a drug offense on
their record, it had precluded them from getting so many jobs. And
when I go to the inner city of Baltimore, I talk about that because
they think it is only a problem in the inner city. And so then I just
heard Ms. Volkow talk about how jobs are a part of getting that
person back into society.
Are there any efforts to try and look at some of these State laws
on the part of either of you? And I don’t know if that comes under
your purview, so we can get people to have some hope and able to
get back and circulate in society, since that is such a crucial part
of recovery.
Dr. CURIE. I am not aware of any formal reviews of looking at
that. I think it would be a worthwhile endeavor to consider, especially since we are using recovery now as our framing of service delivery. Historically, and I think Dr. Volkow was, when she is talking about after-care, historically, I think from the public sector side
of things, as we finance services, we have focused primarily on the
treatment or the treatment intervention and not on the whole recovery picture. We have begun focusing on the whole recovery picture recognizing that relapse is less likely to occur if people are attaining those real life goals of employment, education, stable housing, connectiveness to family and friends, and connectiveness to the
community. So as we are basically embarking, I would say, in a relatively new chapter as we look at what we are financing. I think
the type of review you described would be worthwhile because historically you never heard us talking necessarily to labor or to education about how we help individuals build a life. We used to think
that if we provided access to care and some forms of care, we are
done with our mission. We are recognizing today that we are not
finished with our mission.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

38
Mr. CUMMINGS. Just one other thing. When I talk to people in
my district who are recovering addicts, one of their biggest concerns is a job. And the more I think about it combined with what
you just said, I mean, it really makes sense. One, they need another family. In other words, the family that got them on drugs,
they need to get away from that group or they will be right back
where they started. Two, I guess it does give them a sense of
worth. Three, it gives them a whole lot more eyes looking over
their shoulder, like the woman who is their boss or the person that
they become familiar with and becomes a friend that they eat
lunch with or people that go out and play baseball after work.
So basically what we are talking about is sort of a shifting from
one lifestyle and trying to shift them over to another lifestyle, that
includes new people and new opportunities to change and get away
from what sent them there in the first place.
Dr. CURIE. Exactly. Goals, aspirations, you mentioned hope earlier. It is all part of it. Your experience parallels mine. When I ask
a question of people what they need, people who have an addictive
disease or disorder, they don’t define that they need a clinical program. They define that they are looking for a job, a home and a
date on the weekends to build a new life. And a job also strikes
not only giving someone a sense of worth, but in our society, the
basic question you’re asked when you enter a neighborhood is what
do you do? And if you don’t have an answer to that question, already you’re on a slippery slope in terms of acceptance in that community. So a job goes to basically identity in this society.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Just as a footnote when you are at a party and
a fellow is talking to a young lady, she wants to know what do you
do, do you work and have job.
Mr. SOUDER. Congressman Blackburn has been very involved in
this before she came to Congress, and we had an excellent hearing
in her district as well, a number of remarkable people in Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. That is exactly right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and to my colleague. He was speaking in terms of family and
I was sitting here making some notes before he started speaking
on that issue, abouit the importance of a family or an extended
family or well-placed mentors. I do applaud our President in the
fact that he has developed mentoring programs and that he is a
supporter of faith-based initiatives. As the chairman mentioned,
the hearing we did in our district and the very active work and
participation that is taking place on that.
So I agree with what he is saying, that those life skills that
many times our educational system no longer teaches. It is important that we have families and mentors to fill that void and to
teach those skills to young people. I thank you both for being here
and appearing before us. I appreciate it.
Dr. Volkow, I want to thank you specifically for using the front
and back of your paper. We conservatives like to see that. It is
wonderful that we doubled up there. You know just think what we
could do to cut the use of paper in half if we used the front and
back of the paper, so we thank you for that. A couple of questions
that I do have looking through your testimony, Dr. Curie. I want
to start with you first, please. As you reference the programs in the

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

39
studies that you have done, one of the things I am not seeing is
the complete universe of individuals in your programs. I am going
to ask these questions in bulk just to save time and let you answer
them.
Out of the individuals in the program and the length of time they
were in their programs, one of the things from the State level that
we have learned is that short programs don’t work, longer programs do work. Out of this universe, what is the recidivism rate
and do you have any documented evidence on tying the length of
the program to the recidivism rate? In looking at your accountabilities, and I appreciate your spelling out the seven domains, I think
that is really excellent, do we know how much we are spending per
individual to move them through this program?
And let me go ahead and finish here. When we look at the
States, and both of you mentioned working with the States, as you
move them through this, have you developed some type of software
that you or some type of program that they are going to be able
to submit this accountability data to you? And our grantees, if they
are not accountable, is there a process for withholding money or
moving them out of the program? I know that is a lot to throw out,
but I have got 5 minutes, so I wanted to be sure I got out of all
of these things before you.
Dr. CURIE. Understood. I can share with you information about
specific programs and the link between longevity within the program and relapse and we have that mainly on specific programs,
sometimes by State. There is no real comprehensive national picture of that and that is one reason we want the seven domains to
be consistent among all grants because we think that will help us
begin to paint more of a national picture.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that we
have that submitted for the record and for our review.
Dr. CURIE. And as we move ahead in terms of working with the
States, State data infrastructure is a real critical issue. When you
speak to the States, you understand that there are many demands
on their particular State budget. At the same time, they have State
legislators and Governors who want to have this information for
them to make informed decisions. So there is an alignment of goals.
We are providing both resources and technical assistance to States
to help and develop the data infrastructure. Also working with
States, there are certain States that have excellent data information systems that can be used as models for other States.
We are also looking to work with the National Association of
State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors to accommodate that. But
that is a priority and it is going to be essential in order for us to
gain the data we need to measure performance.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, sir. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Davis.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and I thank you
for calling this hearing. I have gotten very much into this whole
business. In fact, I am leading an initiative effort in Illinois to get
a referendum on the November ballot calling for drug treatment on
demand. We have to get 300,000 signatures and we have gotten
about 60,000 that I have in my office in a safe right now. Let me

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

40
tell you the headlines in the Chicago Sun Times on Monday, saying
that Chicago is now No. 2 in the Nation in drug overdoses. Philadelphia is No. 1. Chicago is No. 2. And of course lots of folks
thought that the increase would be in the inner city area of Chicago, but it is actually more prevalent in the suburban communities outside of Chicago and especially with teenagers using heroin.
And so it is a big issue and a big problem. One of the questions
we find people are asking as we deal with our referendum effort
is how effective is treatment, that is, if individuals get treated,
then so what? What is the difference between the recidivism rate
for those who are treated and those who are not? And we got into
it really because there is such a close relationship between crime
and drug use and abuse. I mean, most of the crime that we encounter is in some way, shape, form or fashion drug related or drug connected. And so we got to thinking that if we could reduce drug use,
we also could reduce crimes and save ourselves a tremendous
amount of money and human misery and other problems associated
with it.
Is there a discernible difference in different kinds of treatment
and their effectiveness? Do we have enough data to suggest that
people who treat it one way, the recidivism rate might be one
thing. If they are treated another way, it may be something different?
Ms. VOLKOW. Yes, there is some data for certain drug addictions,
particularly for heroin, where we have compared the relapse rate
for one type of treatment versus the other. And in the case of heroin we of course have methadone and buprenorphine, and indeed,
studies have shown very, very clearly and cogently that treatment
with these medications significantly reduces relapse and also the
relapse reduction is significantly greater than basically other types
of treatment intervention.
For heroin addiction, that is definitely the case. For other types
of addictions, there is not enough research to compare one modality
versus another. There are two aspects that I think are very, very
relevant. When you compare one modality versus the other, you
have to consider that not every addict is the same nor are their circumstances. And that’s why I made the point that you have to be
able to tailor the treatment accordingly to the needs of the individual. It is not going to be a transparent comparison in one versus
the other.
Another thing I want to reiterate because it is extremely important and it has carried the field tremendously, is the notion that
when you provide treatment and there is relapse, automatically it
is felt that there was failure when, in fact, relapse may not be failure. When you are treating someone for hypertension, if the blood
pressure has been stabilized for 6 months and 1 day it goes up, did
you fail? You did not fail. You restart treatment. Even though relapse is part of the process, it does not necessarily mean that our
medications have failed and that is one of the aspects that we have
to start to change in the way we evaluate treatment. We are setting up the comparisons of different treatment modalities. We have
the clinical trials network whose function it is to do exactly what

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

41
you are asking, to compare the different modalities and to optimize
what is best for a given individual.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to run to another
hearing, but I would like to ask one additional question if I could,
and that is, is there enough information that we have been able to
evaluate relative to faith-based efforts? And I mean we had an
event Saturday and I had about 400 people in recovery and since
I have been working so closely with them, I have learned so many
things that I haven’t really thought about in terms of who is addicted.
A lot of people seem to think that a lot of individuals who are
addicted are thrill seekers and macho people and that many of the
people who become addicted are lacking in self-esteem and somehow or another, whatever it is, they end up using. We were doing
role playing and all of that to get them ready to go out and help
get these signatures. And there were some individuals who simply
could not ask a person to sign a petition because they could not
look at them. And even when they would be talking they would be
looking away. And of course, the faith-based stuff seemed to help
with that somewhat. Is there any data related to the effectiveness
of faith-based efforts?
Ms. VOLKOW. The answer is that there has not been enough research in this area. We are currently funding several grants that
are specifically addressing the role of spirituality in the recovery
process because most of the treatments that are available for drug
addiction incorporate faith-based approaches into their systems.
We are specifically requesting in all of our program announcements
and request for proposals that faith-based organizations, we are encouraging them to apply for these funds.
Unfortunately, there is not enough research that has been done,
but we are actually encouraging the community to come and request grants so that we can start to look at these questions that
you are asking.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your leadership in this area.
Mr. SOUDER. If you have additional written questions that you
want to submit, you can do that as well. If I could ask a followup
on that faith-based point. We have been doing a series of field hearings around the country, both on narcotics and on faith-based. And
one of the things we heard in San Antonio as well as Los Angeles
and a few other places is that in faith-based drug treatment programs, one of the things that has been an effective measure, and
disagree with me if this is incorrect, but I think most people agree
that the more inclined a person is to want to get off their addiction,
the more success there is, not saying that you have to have voluntary compliance or speaking about the program to make it more
successful. But the more one is prepared to have a life changing experience, the more likely you are for success. And one of the roles
of the faith based organizations is preparing their heart for a
change in their life that prepares them for the drug treatment.
Is that one of the things you might be looking at in the research,
and has that come up before?
Because that is a little different than saying it is precisely a drug
treatment program. It is saying that because they are willing to

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

42
make a life change and they are transforming their life, that has
prepared them now mentally to go through a drug program.
Dr. VOLKOW. What you are saying is correct. It is a basis of a
therapy called transcendental therapy, and it has been shown to be
effective not just for drug addiction but other types of behavioral
disorders, where the main element is to make the person aware
that they want to really incorporate the sense that they want to
make a change in their life. This is an extremely important component of whether a person will succeed or not.
Yet at the same time, you also state that what we have shown,
it does not necessitate treatment be voluntary, but the motivation
of the person to change is indispensable.
As for your question about what is the role of faith-based organizations in helping drive the person to really accept and incorporate
that need to change and willingness to change is one of the items
that may indeed be playing a role. But we have to do the stories
to demonstrate it.
The question scientifically is, what are the active ingredients
that determine the benefits for faith-based approaches? And it is
likely that one of them may be, but that is why we are doing the
work. And we do not have answers yet. So one can just predict.
From previous research, it does make sense that this is one of the
variables.
Mr. CURRIE. I would say one common denominator among all
programs, whether they are faith-based or they’re not faith-based,
could, again, be the seven domains being a way of judging outcome
and effectiveness over time as well. And I think those domains can
be utilized with a wide range of interventions.
Also, I think with faith-based approaches, recovery is such an individualized process. As Congressman Davis said, if there were 400
people in the room, there will probably be 400 different stories of
recovery, some with common elements.
But the role that faith plays, sometimes, it is an upfront role as
you just described. Sometimes, it’s a role that, once they’ve been
through a medically based program in order to sustain recovery in
the 12-step program, the spiritual component of that helps them
sustain recovery.
So I think faith can play a role at different levels in an individual’s life, and again, I think the biggest challenge for us in using
recovery as we are framing both public policy and public finance
is that it is such an individualized process.
Mr. SOUDER. I want to ask one other question. The most spectacular failure, certainly in North America and possibly the world,
is Vancouver, British Columbia, right now in their needle-exchange
program. And now on top of having the world’s highest HIV infection rate, they have this huge expanded market of actual heroin
addicts. And now this high-THC marijuana, it has now corrupted
several officials in their government. They are being prosecuted,
going down the path of Colombia, more or less, and what happened
in Mexico before those governments started to tackle it.
In Vancouver, they started this program in 1988. They are now
up to 2 million needles that they are distributing on the street. And
people call that harm reduction. And I wanted to have two clarifications here.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

43
One is, there is a difference between harm reduction defined that
way, which is more of a maintenance question. In other words, a
heroin addict is getting a needle. The presumption is that you reduce AIDS, which has not necessarily been proven. The presumption is that you reduce AIDS, but you wouldn’t treat the heroin.
That is different than the treatment programs you are talking
about. You are not talking about maintenance. You are talking
about changing someone’s addiction.
And the second thing I wanted to make sure that we were clear
on is that do we have any data, or what percentage of people who
actually get the needle exchange go to treatment? Or in fact, does
giving them the needle perpetuate it, and then they do not see the
need for treatment?
Dr. VOLKOW. Actually, it is interesting, because you were making
the statement in the way that you were saying, which is absolutely
correct, that just providing needles by itself is not helping anyone.
But what research has shown is that needle-exchange programs
in the line of a comprehensive drug-treatment program have been
shown to reduce HIV, and also includes the likelihood that these
individuals will stay for treatment. So needle exchange by itself is
not going to solve a problem. Not at all.
And it also addresses another aspect that is very relevant when
we look at one thing. We sort of say we are looking at treatment.
And the other aspect I view, which is very relevant, is that of prevention. So what is the message that we are sending with respect
to prevention in terms of just exchanging needles?
And that is why, when we bring up that issue, we basically say
what science has taught us is that needle-exchange programs in
line with a comprehensive drug-abuse treatment program have
shown in fact to reduce the cases of HIV when they are combined.
Not by itself.
Mr. CURRIE. You are exactly right. The treatment programs we
are talking about are not about harm reduction. In fact, when we
talk about prevention and recovery, we are not talking about harm
reduction but harm elimination. It’s bottom line the risk factors
you need to eliminate in the prevention scenario. As one attains
and sustains recovery, they begin to manage their illness. They
begin to manage their life. And that goes much beyond a harm-reduction vision.
Mr. SOUDER. I thank you both for your testimony, and we will
probably have some written followups, not only from me but from
other members in the subcommittee.
Thank you for coming.
Mr. SOUDER. If the second panel could come forward. As you
come forward, if you could remain standing so that we could do the
oath. If witnesses would raise their right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. SOUDER. Let the record show that each of the witnesses responded in the affirmative.
Thank you all for being here today. Our first witness is Dr.
Thomas McLellan, director of Treatment Research Institute in
Philadelphia, PA.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

44
STATEMENTS OF THOMAS MCLELLAN, PH.D., DIRECTOR,
TREATMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PHILADELPHIA, PA;
CHARLES O’KEEFFE, VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY, RICHMOND, VA; KAREN FREEMAN-WILSON, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL DRUG COURT INSTITUTE, ALEXANDRIA, VA; JEROME JAFFE, M.D., PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF
MARYLAND, BALTIMORE, MD; CATHERINE MARTENS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, SECOND GENESIS, SILVER SPRING,
MD; AND HENDREE JONES, PH.D., RESEARCH DIRECTOR,
CENTER FOR ADDICTION AND PREGNANCY, BALTIMORE, MD

Dr. MCLELLAN. Thank you. I was already told that one person
wrote on both sides. I wrote on no sides, so I will just read it here.
I am Tom McLellan. I am a researcher in the substance-abuse
treatment field from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
and the Treatment Research Institute there.
I am not an advocate and neither I nor my institute represent
any treatment or Government organization. I offer evidence on the
effects of treatments for alcohol, opiate, cocaine and amphetamine
addictions based on my own work of over 400 reviewed studies and
based on reviews. I’m the editor of the journal Substance Abuse
Treatment, so I see many reviews of other work.
I have five very simple points to make. First, addiction treatment
can be evaluated. It’s not something that you have to wonder
about. The same standards of evidence apply as apply to the evaluation of medications and interventions commonly done in the Food
and Drug Administration. There are over 700 published studies of
contemporary treatments so there is an evidence base.
Point two, effectiveness does not mean cure. We do not have a
reliable cure. Yes, there are many people in the field who have become abstinent and lived productive lives. They are probably not
going to be able to drink or use drugs socially again. So there is
not a cure. On the other hand, evaluation perspective and a determination of effectiveness shouldn’t just mean that the patient feels
better.
The scientific basis for effectiveness means three things, as it’s
commonly evaluated. First is the significant reduction of the substance use. Alcohol, cigarettes, opiates, cocaine, amphetamine—significant reduction.
Second is improvement in personal health and social function.
Basically, a reduction of the society’s responsibility for the individual.
And the third piece of evidence is reduction in public health and
public safety threats. And that is what we mean by effective.
Point three, not all treatments are effective. Some treatment programs are quite competent. Some aren’t, like any other field. Certain treatments do not work. We have talked about them already.
Detoxifications, for example, do not work unless they are followed
by continuing care. Acupuncture does not work unless it is part of
some other broader treatment.
Many contemporary treatment components have not been evaluated. They have simply been adopted well before modern methods
have been brought to bear. And also many evidence-based treatments, treatments that were discussed by Doctors Volkow and

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

45
Curie, are not in practice because of financing and training issues,
and I will discuss that later.
Better treatments have the following characteristics, in general.
I am happy to answer specific questions but in general, longer is
better, in an outpatient setting and one which includes monitoring.
One of the Congressmen asked for one of the components, and
monitoring is an important one.
Better treatments include tailored social and medical services.
Better treatments typically involve family.
Fourth point, addiction treatment is not the same as it used to
be, but the evaluation of addiction treatment is the same as it used
to be. And it does not fit anymore.
Not so long ago, over 60 percent of addiction treatment was delivered in a residential facility someplace. You went someplace to
that famous 28-day treatment, and the question was, how long do
the good effects last? So you did a 6-month, 12-month post treatment evaluation. In general, relapse rates were 50 percent just
about anywhere you went.
Now, addiction treatment isn’t delivered in residential facilities
anymore. Over 90 percent of addiction treatment in this country is
done on the street in outpatient settings. People are ambulatory.
My point there is, it’s too late to wait 6 months, 12 months after
they are out of that kind of care. What you want to know is, are
people attaining abstinence? Are they attaining employment? Are
they being re-arrested? Are they using expensive hospital resources? That evaluation has not caught on yet.
The kinds of studies that have been done have to be able to give
real accountability in the field, if you ask my opinion, now because
that is where treatment is, it’s on the street.
The final thing I have to simply say is that the basic infrastructure of the U.S. treatment system is in very bad condition. Program
closures or takeovers are over 20 percent a year. Program directors
make less money than prison guards and have fewer benefits. The
great majority of programs have no full-time physician, no psychologist, no social worker. That is the majority of treatment programs
in the country. Counselor turnover rates are comparable to the
fast-food industry. The pay is terrible, and there aren’t standards.
Though there are well-studied, excellent medications and therapies available, thanks to the work of the National Institute on Alcoholism and National Institute of Drug Abuse and CSAT, frankly,
most cannot be adopted by the present system. This is a system
that can’t be regulated into effectiveness. It’s going to have to have
financing, incentives, to bring professionals into the field, to retain
them, and it needs the kind of infrastructure that will provide the
kinds of things that are associated with better treatments has to
be available. And that concludes my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Dr. McLellan follows:]

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

46

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

47

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00051

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

48

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

49

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

50

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00054

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

51

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

52

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00056

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

53
Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. We will now go to Mr. O’Keeffe from
the Virginia Commonwealth University.
Mr. O’KEEFFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. It is a privilege to be here this afternoon.
Others testifying today will address more directly the measurement of the success of treatment effectiveness. I hope to provide
the committee with a perspective on overall treatment policy. Together, these perspectives will, I hope, help the committee in its deliberations about the best strategies to improve drug addiction
treatment.
The main point I wish to make today is that Federal policy is not
optimal for the development and/or deployment of new treatments.
There have been some recent improvements, but much more needs
to be done.
As you know well, Mr. Chairman, because of longstanding strong
Federal regulation, the system for treating opiate dependence has
evolved as one separated, even isolated, from the normal practice
of medicine. This has resulted in a disconnect between the findings
of the research community and the practices of treatment providers.
In 1972, thanks to the work of the country’s first drug czar, Dr.
Jerome Jaffe, proposals related to the appropriate use of methadone as addiction treatment were included in the Nixon administration’s initiative on drug abuse. This initiative established stringent regulations regarding eligibility for treatment, dosage to be
administered, level of counseling, length of treatment and criteria
for take-home dosing.
To prevent abuse and diversion of methadone, the subsequently
promulgated regulation created a closed system that allowed treatment only through specialty clinics. And according to Dr. Jaffe, the
drafters of the regulations did not intend for medication dispensing
to be forever limited to a few large clinics. Although they recognized that access to treatment by individual physicians might be
temporarily limited, they believed that the regulations would be revised as knowledge expanded and as opiate maintenance treatment
became less controversial.
Sadly, this was not the case. Those temporary regulations remained and have been significantly expanded over the subsequent
30 years.
We learned in the 1960’s that treatment could be effective. However, because the general portrayal of patients addicted to opiates
as miscreants, treatment was confined to a small number of specialty clinics generally located in larger metropolitan areas and
controlled by stringent regulations. This depiction of patients generally led communities to resist allowing treatment programs to locate in any but the least desirable areas. Physicians were reluctant
to treat addicted patients because of the public perception of these
patients, the treatment locations and the complexity of the regulations.
Consequently, a non-physician-oriented treatment system began
to develop. Addicted patients became clients of programs that eventually developed a fortress mentality. Because treatment moved
further away from the mainstream practice of medicine and more
and more clients were seen by counselors and advisers instead of

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

54
patients seen by physicians, more and more regulations were needed to assure that appropriate treatment protocols were followed.
Treatment programs became increasingly insular under a maze
of complicated rules, further distancing physicians and the health
care community from the care of these patients.
Meanwhile, the research community lead by NIDA was making
inroads into new treatment methods, pharmaceutical products and
improvement in the treatment of co-occurring diseases. These developments led to new products, new uses for old products and new
approaches to the treatment for this chronic, relapsing brain disease.
It is essential that Federal policy now ensures that these new
emerging developments be transferred to the practice of medicine
as quickly and as responsibly as possible so that more patients will
have access to treatment.
Nearly 6 million Americans affected by this disease remain untreated. This untreated population continues to impose a significant burden on both the criminal justice system and the public
health system. Both NIDA and CSAT have recognized this treatment gap and are working toward closing it.
These efforts are commendable, but the executive branch is constrained by legislative requirements, constrained by mandates and
restraints, constrained by the patchwork of Federal and State regulations, which has grown so complex that very few physicians are
willing to begin treating patients because of the infrastructure required by the rules.
In a sense, over time, we have created a monopolistic system
which has arisen from the complex regulatory environment which
now discourages new treatment providers from entering the field.
We are discouraging treatment with evermore burdensome, monopoly building regulation.
Congress recognized this problem and enacted the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 which, for the first time in over 80
years, provides an opportunity for qualified physicians to treat addicted patients in their own office or clinic setting. While this legislation was a major step in bringing the treatment of addiction closer to the practice of medicine. And your bill, Mr. Chairman, will
correct some of the oversights of data. We are clearly not at the end
of the road.
There are crucial next steps, not the least of which is the
daunting task of encouraging and enabling 5 million Americans to
seek and receive treatment for their disease.
DATA began the process of de-stigmatization and its treatment,
but it did not end that process. This committee can help ensure
that policies, priorities and funding are all concessive to the effective treatment.
Perhaps, it’s time for a re-examination of existing treatment policies and their consequential regulatory requirements that discourage adequate treatment. NIDA and the institute of medicine have
the responsibility and access to the expertise to provide recommendation for sorely needed policy and regulatory change which
they lack authority and incentive to make.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

55
The public health as well as this committee would be well served
by seeking their advice on legislation designed to remove existing
impediments to effective treatment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Keeffe follows:]

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00059

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

56

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

57

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00061

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

58

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00062

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

59

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00063

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

60

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00064

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

61

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00065

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

62

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00066

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

63

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00067

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

64

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00068

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

65

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00069

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

66

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00070

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

67

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00071

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

68

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00072

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

69

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00073

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

70

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00074

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

71

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00075

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

72
Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. Our next witness is the honorable
Karen Freeman-Wilson, executive director of the National Drug
Court Institute in Alexandria.
Thank you for being here.
Ms. FREEMAN-WILSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to represent the National Drug Court Institute and address this very important issue.
Dr. McLellan has already talked about the importance of measuring client outcomes during the course of treatment when it is
still possible to alter the treatment plan for the client’s benefit. I
will not duplicate his discussion except to underscore my agreement that traditional approaches of measuring pre-to-post changes
in client functioning have unfairly obscured the true effects of drug
treatment services because they assess outcomes after treatment
has been withdrawn from what is a chronic and relapsing condition.
Although it is the position of our organization that these and
other observations heard here today are applicable to treatment in
all contexts, I will frame my conversation in the context of our findings in the drug court arena.
Drug courts are a unique blend of treatment, case management,
intense supervision and support services along with judicial case
processing. The success or failure of participants in recovery depends heavily on their access to quality effective treatment in drug
court.
There are a number of indicators that can be reviewed to determine whether treatment is effective in drug court. The first is the
rate at which offenders report to treatment pursuant to a court
order and the length of stay and the rate of completion once they
arrive.
Next is the offender’s abstinence from the use of alcohol and
other drugs. Each drug court is required to monitor abstinence
through regular, random and observed drug testing. This means
that most participants are tested at least two to three times a
week.
Another measure of the effectiveness of treatment in the drug
court context is the ability of the offender to comply with aspects
of the drug court program. Is the person actively engaged in community service? Are they actively involved in job search, vocational
training or school? Are they attending self-help meetings? Are they
appearing as ordered for court review hearings and meetings with
probation officers and other court staff? Are they paying their fines
and fees?
Another factor which may assist in the determination of whether
treatment is effective is the status of the offender’s personal relationships during the drug court program. Is there a spouse, significant other, parent or child who regularly accompanies the offender
to court, probation and counseling sessions? How successful is the
participant in improving their living conditions as indicated by living most of the time in their own apartment or house, with their
families, in someone else’s apartment, room or house, or in sober
housing?

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00076

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

73
The measures discussed above address our evaluation of treatment while an offender is actively involved in the court process.
Another related measure is the completion of educational or vocational programs and elevation in job status after treatment. One
of the most important factors to the success or failure of drug
courts and treatment is the individual’s decrease in criminal involvement or activity. That is measured generally by recidivism.
While all of the factors discussed above are important, some are
easier to measure than others. It’s relatively simple to maintain
and compile statistics with drug testing. It’s easy to review whether a person reports for treatment or engages in treatment.
In looking at the more challenging measures, you must ask: How
do you gauge the quality of relationships? How do you look at the
number of trips a family member takes to court?
In conclusion, there are a number of considerations that must be
made in an effort to standardize measurements to achieve more effective treatment research. First, it’s important to take any measurement at three key points in time: Before, during and after treatment, whenever possible. There is an inherent challenge involved
in measuring indicators prior to treatment because there will be a
need to rely heavily on self-reporting. I detail the other points and
measures in my testimony.
In concluding, I would recommend that this committee call for
the development and adoption of a core validated data set to be
captured in all federally funded evaluation-and-research studies to
drug abuse treatment.
I would also recommend that this committee put its weight behind the adoption and enforcement of best practice standards for
drug treatment programs with suitable performance benchmarks
that programs must meet in order to establish that they are providing evidence-based interventions with appropriate and documented treatment integrity. National organizations such as
NADCP are ideally suited to review the research to establish performance benchmarks and to promulgate suitable standards for
their respective disciplines.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Freeman-Wilson follows:]

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00077

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

74

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00078

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

75

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00079

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

76

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00080

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

77

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00081

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

78

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00082

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

79

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00083

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

80

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00084

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

81
Mr. SOUDER. I need to correct the record with something because
I was trying to sort it out, and it was in the footnotes of your testimony.
I was very confused when I read this: executive director, Alexandria, VA, because, I am saying, I think she was Attorney General
of Indiana and on the Governor’s drug commission. So first off, you
are one of us, not part of this Washington group here. So I welcome
a fellow Hoosier. I should have caught that earlier in my introduction of you, thank you very much for coming.
Dr. Jaffe is a professor at the University of Maryland in Baltimore. Would you elaborate, did I understand Mr. O’Keeffe to say
that you were the first drug czar?
Dr. JAFFE. I have been called that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I thank you for inviting me to speak to you on measuring the effectiveness of treatment.
In January, Join Together, a project of Boston University School
of Public Health, released a study called, ‘‘Rewarding Results: Improving the Quality of Treatment for People With Alcohol and Drug
Problems.’’ I had the privilege of chairing the panel that produced
the report. I will offer some highlights of the report here and will
submit the entire report for use by the subcommittee.
First, some preliminary thoughts on evaluation. First, how one
evaluates or measures the effectiveness of treatment programs depends very much on the purpose for undertaking the evaluation.
For example, an employer who wants to know if a program covered
by the company’s insurance plan is effective may be interested in
knowing not only whether or not the problem drug or alcohol use
is stopped but also how soon the employee can return to work.
Another agency may be more interested in knowing if treatment
has resulted in decreased criminal activity.
Depending on resources and goals, one can obtain information directly by finding and interviewing patients or indirectly by analyzing data bases. It’s also possible to look at surrogate measures of
outcome, measures that correlate highly with good outcome, such
as retention in treatment.
Federal agencies have put out a number of guidelines that, if
properly implemented, could improve the overall quality of treatment. The guidelines aimed at improving quality are unlikely in
and of themselves to do the job. They cannot compel high-quality
treatment.
Crucial to high-quality treatment is a well-trained work force as
well as better application of findings that have emerged and will
continue to emerge from research.
But in the real world of treatment where there are about 12,000
programs, two major problems impede the implementation of those
guidelines.
First, many programs are quite small and even many large ones
lack the financial resources to put guidelines into practice.
Second, because the job is stressful and salaries are low, there
is a high turnover of personnel, not only among first-line counselors
and clinicians but also among program supervisors and managers.
With such turnover, much of the investment that programs make
in clinical and management training is lost.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00085

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

82
The Join Together panel concluded that unless there are clear
and continuing incentives to provide quality treatment, quality will
always take second place to program survival or expansion. What
is needed to drive quality improvement is a commitment by those
who pay for treatment to reward good outcome. In other words, reward results.
Again, depending, the results can vary. Merely publicizing results can have the effect of stimulating pride in the better programs and stimulating a sense of urgency in the less effective ones.
You can make the rewards more tangible by paying more to the
better programs or directing more patients to those programs.
Implementing systems that look at outcomes will require additional resources. These shouldn’t be carved from what is now available for treatment. Rewarding results should be seen as a means
to improve outcome. It is not a pathway to getting more treatment
for less money.
The Join Together panel recommends that rewarding results be
defined as a national goal. On the road to reaching that goal, there
are many technical and political obstacles to be overcome. And
many upon different groups will have to be persuaded that it can
be done and should be done.
I thank you for your time and would be happy to answer questions.
[NOTE.—The Join Together report entitled, ‘‘Rewarding Results,
Improving the Quality of Treatment for People with Alcohol and
Drug Problems,’’ may be found in subcommittee files.]
[The prepared statement of Dr. Jaffe follows:]

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00086

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

83

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00087

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

84

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00088

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

85

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00089

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

86
Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much for your testimony.
The next witness is Catherine Martens, senior vice president of
Second Genesis in Silver Spring, MD.
Ms. MARTENS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman
Cummings.
As the chairman said, my name is Cathy Martens, and I am the
executive director of Second Genesis and a member of the Board
of Directors of the Therapeutic Communities of America.
As a provider, Second Genesis appreciates the opportunity to provide the committee with our written testimony about measuring
the effectiveness of drug treatment.
Second Genesis is the oldest therapeutic community-based substance provider in the Mid-Atlantic region and Maryland’s largest
provider.
As a successful nonprofit for over 35 years, we continue to serve
the substance-abuse populations in Washington, DC, Virginia, and
Maryland. We have criminal justice programs, programs for women
and their children and a highly respected integrated program for
clients with co-occurring disorders.
Society cannot continue to pay for the individuals who unsuccessfully cycle through various treatment options and criminal justice
systems. In the Outlook and Outcomes 2002 Report from Maryland, an untreated substance abuser on the street costs society an
estimated $43,300 a year. An incarcerated substance abuser costs
$39,600 a year.
In contrast, 8-months of residential treatment at Second Genesis
costs only $17,280, and for the remaining 4 months of the year and
beyond, the recovering taxpayer is a productive member of society
and a taxpayer.
Second Genesis clinical professionals have determined that the
shorter the stay of the client, the more likely that client is to relapse.
Our own data collection demonstrates that 6 months after leaving residential treatment, 70 percent of long-term clients reported
no alcohol or other drug use in the 30 days prior to that survey.
The overall success rate of our program is 63 percent, significantly
higher than that of the Maryland Statewide average of 47 percent
for similar clients.
As a provider, we are largely publicly funded, which requires us
to report to Government contract officers, foundations and other
sources of funding, proof that the dollars that they have invested
with us have produced concrete results. We use the HATS reporting protocol to report regularly and electronically to data collection
systems for our contractors. The majority of this information is in
actual real-time.
We collect information on our clients at admission, halfway
through treatment, at discharge and 90 days post-treatment. However, in order to provide this outcome information, the burden of
reporting has grown enormously. We are also responsible for staff
training and other increasing costs associated with the outcomebased data collection.
Second Genesis has approximately 40 counselors that spend a
minimum of 10 percent of their job completing outcome-related paperwork. This number does not include all of the other paperwork

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00090

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

87
that must be completed for each client. It becomes increasingly
burdensome to dedicate staff hours and training to data collection
at the expense of direct client treatment.
We are mandated to maintain this data to prove program effectiveness. Additionally, Second Genesis employs three full-time individuals who manage all aspects of this data collection and its analysis. However, funding to comply with Federal and other contractual mandates has not followed suit.
We collect information on all of the SAMHSA seven domains, yet
it is the analysis of this data that is truly important.
In summary, substance abuse treatment programs should be constructed on and funded on evidence-based methodologies that are
outcome-based and meet appropriate performance standards. According to Therapeutic Communities of America, any outcome
measures should have the following considerations: addicted individuals must be placed in the appropriate level, type and standard
of care to achieve positive and quality results. According to the
NIDA research report, Therapeutic Communities [TC], for individuals with multiple serious problems, research again suggested outcomes were better for those who receive TC treatment for 90 days
or more.
Treatment and any other performance standards must be clientbased and should flow as a function of the client necessitating a coordinated and comprehensive continuum of care for that client. Any
measure or performance standard should recognize that different
treatment methodologies, should reflect the timeframe from which
favorable impact outcomes are likely to occur. This consideration
also includes modifications to treatment, when necessary, in working with special populations.
Any measure should recognize Therapeutic Community residential programs and permit at least 8 to 12 months of continuous
treatment. Outcomes and measures should be no different in application to addicted individuals than any other chronic disease. Realistic goals for specific substance-abuse populations should be established. In the case of substance abuse, unlike any other illness, our
system is often in danger of undertreating the client.
No Federal or State measurement or performance standard
should be mandated without providing necessary direct funding,
technical assistance and capacity building to the service providers.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you, and I would
welcome any questions you might have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Martens follows:]

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00091

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

88

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00092

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

89

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00093

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

90

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00094

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

91

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00095

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

92

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00096

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

93

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00097

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

94
Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.
Our final witness today is Dr. Hendree Jones.
Dr. JONES. Hendree.
Mr. SOUDER. Hendree Jones, a research director for the Center
for Addiction and Pregnancy in Baltimore, MD.
Dr. JONES. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
And a special hello to Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, who
represents the patients and families in Baltimore City where Johns
Hopkins Bayview Medical Center for Addiction and Pregnancy is
located. And thank you very much for inviting me to testify.
I serve as the director of research for the Center For Addiction
and Pregnancy [CAP]. It is located at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center. And I am also a NIDA-funded researcher on drug
treatment effectiveness. Additionally, my program is a member of
the Maryland Addiction Directors Council and State Association of
Addiction Services, a national organization of State alcohol, drugabuse treatment associations and provider associations whose mission is to ensure the accessibility and accountability of quality drug
and alcohol treatment and prevention services.
I have spent a lot of time thinking about how to expand and improve drug treatment effectiveness, and obviously, we need to close
the tremendous treatment gap. We also need to invest in the best
treatment options, ensuring that our science makes it onto the
streets and makes it into everyday practice.
CAP’s outcomes actually demonstrate that drug and alcohol
treatment can be effective, and I want to share some of our latest
successes with you: 75 percent of the women who are enrolled in
CAP have drug-free deliveries and are drug-free 3 months after
completing our treatment program; 81 percent of our children are
drug-free at delivery; 70 percent of our women maintain custody of
their children; 15 percent of our women actually decrease dependency on welfare; and 95 percent of our women actually remain
HIV-negative while in treatment.
Our average CAP baby is born at a normal time, at a very
healthy birth weight, with normal alertness. Investing in CAP
treatment can actually save $12,000 per infant through a reduction
in the neonatal intensive care unit stays.
CAP successes are actually typical of many treatment programs
across the country that treat women with children. And let me tell
you a little bit how we have been able to achieve those outcomes.
CAP was founded in 1991, and it is an outpatient as well as residential treatment program. And we have a number of ancillary
support services, including the drug abuse treatment that we provide. We provide transportation to and from the program. We have
onsite OB/GYN care and onsite pediatric care and also onsite child
care for women attending the outpatient treatment. And we have
intensive outreach services. So if a client doesn’t show up for treatment, we are out there on the streets looking for the patient to
bring her back in. And it is these ancillary support services that
help us achieve our outcomes.
There are other recommendations I have for improving the quality of treatment services. The ability to conduct studies and actually measure outcomes will improve the quality of treatment. CAP
has been able to conduct these studies because we have been fund-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00098

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

95
ed by NIDA. And we have been able to look at specific treatment
interventions, and this information has actually informed our practice and improved it.
Transferring science to service also improves the quality of care.
And what we have learned from studies we need to be able to implement into a first-line, frontline provider service. Without the
technology that was discussed by Dr. Volkow, including the Clinical
Trials Network and SAMHSA’s Addiction Technology Transfer
Centers, the addiction treatment field will be much slower to accept these new technologies.
We also need to be funding new techniques, including emerging
medications as well as medications and behavioral interventions, to
put the best practice into place.
We need to be able to recruit and retain a qualified addiction
treatment work force. The development of course work in medical
and nursing schools is key to encouraging practitioners to recognize
drug dependence or abuse as well as to know where to provide referrals for those patients to treat them.
We also need to not forget our recovering community who has
long been the frontline providers in this treatment.
Finally, it would be good to develop loan forgiveness programs
and repayment programs in order to facilitate people to stay in this
typically low-paying field.
Funding access to the full continuum of care will certainly help
to improve treatment quality. Patients are often not able to go from
one level of care to the next, and CAP patients are certainly not
an exception to this barrier. Funding the full continuum of treatment is very difficult for different jurisdictions given the pressure
on the limited amount of funds that we have, as well as the limitations that exist on current funding mechanisms like Medicaid.
If we were to increase the fiscal year 2005 substance abuse prevention and treatment block grants, Access to Recovery programs,
and target capacity expansion programs, we could help meet the
pressing needs for treatment.
Additionally, better Medicaid coverage would also improve treatment for women with children. We need to be moving toward a system of uniform treatment-outcome measures across funding
streams to help improve treatment quality.
Moving toward this system of uniform performance measures
across Federal funding streams will help benefit providers by reducing the large paperwork demands that are increasing and help
us to be able to more clearly react to the different types of outcomes that are demanded by potentially different providers.
These savings could hopefully help us reinvest in provider training and back into treatment.
When SAMHSA determines the performance outcome measures,
I hope they will consult with the providers as well as the States
because outcome data is first and foremost generated at the provider level.
Thank you very much for holding this hearing today and for
highlighting the importance of drug treatment. My patients and
the Center for Addiction and Pregnancy staff and I applaud you.
And I would be happy to take questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Jones follows:]

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00099

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

96

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00100

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

97

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00101

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

98

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00102

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

99

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00103

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

100

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00104

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

101

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00105

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

102

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00106

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

103

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00107

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

104

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00108

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

105
Mr. SOUDER. We have three votes. We have approximately 7 minutes left in the first vote.
Are all of you able to stay for a little bit longer? Nobody has a
plane or anything? We are going to go vote.
It will probably be about 20 minutes until we get back unless we
have to hold the vote open for a while.
The subcommittee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. SOUDER. The subcommittee will come back to order.
I want to thank each of you for your testimony and each of you
for your years of work.
I want to start with two different categories. So let me start. Dr.
Jaffe and I believe Mr. O’Keeffe both talked about how to put some
incentives into the system for behavior. I don’t know whether Dr.
McLellan referred to that, too.
Could you describe a little bit more, you said, I believe it was Mr.
O’Keeffe. Was it you who said regulation alone wouldn’t do it; we
need to have incentives? And Dr. Jaffe referred to incentives as
well.
What exactly do you mean by incentives? Are you saying that
you can’t be eligible for certain programs unless you do this? That
there would be a bonus if you did certain things? Longer stays? Different things?
And if we gave those, would it give incentives for programs to
cherry pick, take the easiest to treat as opposed to the hardest to
treat?
Dr. JAFFE. When you put incentives in for producing results, you
always run the risk that those who are trying to get results will
pick the easiest cases. This is true in medicine in general. It’s probably true of life in general.
And one has to develop the methodology—there is some in place
that is just not perfected yet—of adjusting for how difficult the initial cases are so that you can fairly compare practitioners or programs in terms of what they have achieved. And that is the one
area where carefully comparing programs will need further investment to really make that a fair process.
When you ask about what incentives you can have, the incentives can vary.
They can vary from just posting the scores of programs in the
city. It can appeal to pride. It can appeal to consumers, the people
who are seeking treatment. They can vote with their feet. If you
rank the hospitals in terms of their mortality rates for bypass surgery, you quickly find that people seek treatment at the hospitals
that have the lowest mortality rates.
So you don’t necessarily have to pay more, but clearly the providers, I mean the payers, whether it is the government or insurance
plans or employers could begin to say, we pay more for better outcomes. The net effect of that is that those programs that give bad
outcomes get paid less, and ultimately they are either going to
have to merge with more effective programs or go out of business.
That is what happens to any organization that delivers a less than
adequate product.
The real question there, however, is whether or not at the State
level there will be the political will to stop paying for a particular

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00109

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

106
program. Programs often develop their own political support. They
are not without allies and the bureaucrat that tries to say, we are
not going to pay you anymore because you are substantially below
standard, may find he has a very short tenure in the bureaucracy.
I say that having been on both sides of this issue.
Mr. SOUDER. I don’t know if anybody else has a comment, but I
would ask Ms. Freeman-Wilson, could you comment a little bit on
that, coming out of the Gary area where, in the region, there are
success stories and not success stories, but certainly Gary itself to
some degree, East Chicago, have overwhelming challenges.
We are going through the very thing that Dr. Jaffe just talked
about in education. What do you do when a school system is relatively disorganized and how do you get the political will? And
what if the treatment programs were concentrated in that area and
somebody didn’t see how to do that? Yet, fundamentally, there are
basic truths in trying to address the question, because we have
been funding some programs which, we are all kind of familiar
with, are less effective than other programs. But they have a bureaucratic momentum and a size and a number of people who have
been through a comfortability with the insurance or connections.
How do we put this kind of accountability in and yet address the
difficult questions that would be, for example, in northwest Indiana.
Ms. FREEMAN-WILSON. There are two examples in the Gary area
that really speak to Dr. Jaffe’s point. They are the Safe and Drug
Free Schools program and the second is the drug court there, because what happened with both of those programs is that they did
evidence some success. And that success was proven through a very
clear evaluation process, one that was not only given to the participants and those who ran the programs, but those who also funded
the programs both at the Federal level, at the State level and then,
ultimately, the local level. Because the local officials, city and county officials were looked to pick up the funding, particularly for the
drug court program, and they were willing to pick it up because it
showed a reduction in recidivism, it showed more sustained treatment, and it also showed that after a year and after 2 years, that
there was still a sustained reduction in recidivism.
The challenge in both the Safe and Drug Free Schools program
and the drug courts and in other drug courts in the region has been
the consistency of their treatment. I think that the numbers that
were posted in Gary were there because of not necessarily the
treatment, although the treatment was helpful, but also the use of
nonconventional programs and self-help support groups like NA,
like AA and like the presence of the Salvation Army programs.
So when the panelists here talk about the importance of treatment, I think that, and the challenges that you cited in the northwest Indiana region, I think that those are very evident, if you look
at the type of treatment that is important to advance the cause forward.
Mr. SOUDER. Ms. Martens, what is your reaction, as a provider,
to posting results that everybody could see, putting some form of
accountability. How would we do this so that we didn’t have incentives to kind of game the system to some degree?

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00110

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

107
Ms. MARTENS. In the State of Maryland, Congressman Souder,
that is already being done. We are talking real-time outcomes. And
actually we just got a RFP yesterday, which mandates providers to
adhere to real-time data collection.
Mr. SOUDER. If I had a cousin who I wanted to send, I could look
at the different treatment centers and have some sort of a common
comparison across?
Ms. MARTENS. Not really, because there is no treatment on demand in Maryland, if you are not in the criminal justice system.
Mr. SOUDER. What if I wanted to pay for it?
Ms. MARTENS. If you wanted to pay for it, yes, you could find
treatment. And I would liken it to the charter school initiatives,
where the efficacy of what you do is judged, as Dr. Jaffe said. You
are not going to choose a school for your child that has the highest
failure rate in the city or the State.
One of the things I was going to mention to you that Maryland
is doing, and I really commend the State for doing this, is that we
have benchmarks to meet to get paid for each client. So you get
paid a little bit at the beginning. And as that client goes through
treatment and successfully completes, and there is a balloon payment in the end for your efficacy with that client. So you are really
being paid for your outcomes with each individual client, which is
a very interesting way for the State to get what they pay for.
Mr. SOUDER. I know Director Walters testified in front of this
committee when we first began to look at how they were going to
tackle the treatment initiative, and he was proposing to do that at
the Federal level.
Dr. McLellan you said that you felt that some of our measurements weren’t adapting for outpatient as opposed to inpatient.
What is your reaction to what they have proposed there?
Dr. MCLELLAN. You’ll get the kind of thing that Dr. Jaffe and
Judge Wilson are talking about if you do post-treatment-only evaluation. If you evaluated first grade schools in the State of Maryland by the number of people who graduated from high school or
college, you’d never figure out what was the best thing to do in first
grade to make that happen.
The kind of model that Judge Wilson is talking about is much
more iterative and proactive. Feedback occurs week to week to
week. And just as in a medical condition blood pressure is a clinical
measure, it is also an outcome. So you don’t have somebody coming
in from the outside taking the blood pressure. They take the blood
pressure measure because it is both an outcome and it is a point
that gives you decisions for the next thing that you do. If the blood
pressure doesn’t go down, you change.
So I think that is what I am talking about. You need the kind
of immediate feedback, especially since 90 percent of your treatment is in an outpatient setting, those individuals, 60 percent of
whom are coming from the criminal justice system, they are not
away someplace in a program, they are in the community. So immediately you want to know, what is the urine test? Are they getting employed or are they getting job training? Are they hooking
up with an AA sponsor? All the things that Judge Wilson talked
about and it is possible to do.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00111

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

108
Mr. SOUDER. That kind of leads to my other big category of questions. One of the more interesting things that happened back when
I was a staffer, this must have been in the late 1980’s. A number
of my conservative Republican friends all of a sudden found themselves in the administration. And one of our principles was, well,
we ought to block-grant things. We, as conservatives, believe we
shouldn’t have so much control and so many regulations.
We heard Ms. Martens say that the paperwork was becoming
burdensome and that they were having to have all these different
people instead of actually being practitioners and so on. And as we
held an oversight hearing, all of a sudden my conservative friends
were having so many of these regulations. Their comeback was,
well, the only variable is accountability which we have been hearing about on this same panel, talking about too many regulations
and we need more measurements and more flexibility to treat the
patients.
Our dollars aren’t increasing as fast as the demands.
But, by the way, we need more information and you are suggesting a very comprehensive evaluation type of approach. And part of
the reason, I remember Becky Norton Dunlop, who was at the Justice Department at that time, said, what we found out was, when
we didn’t require all this type of thing, that most people were honest, but a bunch of people started ripping us off. And our theft and
fraud rate went up so dramatically that it was more expensive
than the paperwork burden. And, furthermore, the public wouldn’t
support this type of effort if when they hear these cases that were
having some of this in, that is, dogging Medicaid or the food
stamps program, where you find some person and they get on 60
Minutes or 20/20 and this person has been ripping off the Federal
Government for this amount of money. So next, we put a whole
bunch of regulations on for everybody in the system.
How would you suggest we do this? Because we want to make
sure our dollars are effective. There isn’t a Member of Congress,
anybody on the street. Everybody I know who is on drugs has been
through multiple treatment programs. And we go through this effectiveness thing and then we put a whole bunch of requirements
on. How would you address this dilemma?
Dr. MCLELLAN. Just to start, I am certainly not the expert here,
there is a big difference between paperwork, which everybody in
this place will tell you is overwhelming. For example, in Philadelphia, it takes 3 to 4 hours worth of paperwork to get somebody into
treatment, and it is paperwork, meaning that it is stuff that you
fill out that you have no use for.
I am not talking about that and I don’t think anybody here is either. I am talking about as a regular part of the treatment process,
the counselors, the people who are working on the team, are measuring whether they are going to work, whether they are still using
drugs, all clinical, just like the blood pressure. The blood pressure
isn’t paperwork in a hypertension clinic, it is critical. You have to
know what is going on so you can make an adjustment.
That is the point that everybody is, that Judge Wilson keeps
making, to use information to make decisions. That is not paperwork, and it shouldn’t be burdensome.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00112

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

109
Mr. SOUDER. Any other comments on that? In other words, if we
could separate it out, these are the absolutely critical things for
medical reasons, for drug treatment and these are things that we
might need for tracking for financial reasons or insurance companies, one last question.
Ms. MARTENS. Dr. McLellan is absolutely right, the day-to-day
paperwork that we do because treatment is holistic. Doctor is absolutely correct. I need to know what your drug test was yesterday,
how was your family visit, are you getting your GED? These are
very important things, and they are always part of treatment.
It is all of these other things that are now layered onto it that
just take so much time that it really takes time away from direct
client treatment.
Mr. SOUDER. I will say, I mean, you have helped clarify that
those are the things that you need there, and then there are other
things we need for waste and fraud reasons which you may refer
to as paperwork. But quite frankly, I believe it was actually in this
committee room when Chris Shays headed the Human Services
Subcommittee in my first term I was vice chair on a Medicaid
fraud case. And the hardest clients to serve are those who have no
insurance, have no immediate family and have some chronic condition and have moved around.
We have a place in Fort Wayne, a health center that has a lot
of these patients. And we were asking the GAO and the Inspector
General, and we had HHS here and asked why they hadn’t terminated this one company that had been found in court of defrauding
the Federal Government of $1 billion. And they were in multiple
regions in the country and our computers hadn’t caught them
under different names.
But the reason that HHS hadn’t terminated them was because
something like 20 percent of these highest risk people who nobody
else would take, no nursing home would take, the State government really couldn’t do it or they had to have a place to put the
people, nobody would take them, so we were having this company
that was bilking because they claimed the reimbursement wasn’t
enough—probably true—to cover the cost of it, so they started
doing that type of thing.
And part of the reason we have the paperwork side for addresses,
information, for tracking is that. But what we need to do is separate: here is the paperwork necessary for that part and what parts
are medically necessary for drug treatment. And that has been
helpful for me for clarification as we kind of tackle that.
I yield to Mr. Cummings.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I thank all of you for your testimony. One of the things in listening to the chairman, I see all the money that we spend in government; and I hear the complaints from constituents, well, we spend
money on certain things and then we don’t spend money on other
things.
I really want to have some sympathy with regard to the paperwork. I really, really want to, but it is very difficult. I see taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars being paid to treatment facilities, doing
a great job, by the way, but I also think that with those dollars
comes a certain level of accountability.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00113

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

110
And I know you are talking about two separate things. I heard
you, Mr. Chairman, and I am not sure where the divide actually
comes. But I want to go to you, Dr. McLellan.
One of the things you talked about, and it is a very interesting
viewpoint; I really think that when the public watches this, they
would be almost shocked, although I agree with you, that winning
here is not necessarily getting somebody off of drugs forever. And
I think we still have to educate the public to understand that. Because I think a lot of times the public sees a person on drugs, like
a lady I saw in my neighborhood just the other day, who they once
knew as a bright high school student and now they see them sitting on some steps, dirty, nodding, looking quite, you know, out of
it.
And they say to themselves, you know, OK, I want to do something for that person, but if you told them that reducing the
amount of drugs they use, perhaps getting a job, perhaps coming
up with having good relationships with family and a support system could be part of the measurement of success, I think the general public couldn’t fully understand that and comprehend it, because they want to see that person the way they saw them in high
school when they were cheerleaders.
So I think we do have to educate the public about all the kind
of measurements that you all talked about. And I think that because the public wants to see the dollars spent effectively and efficiently. And so it doesn’t necessarily equal effective and efficient
spending of dollars when they hear those kinds of measurements.
So I am just wondering, I mean, you have heard all of your fellow witnesses up here talk. I mean, are there any measurements
that have been left out, anybody, that you didn’t hear?
In other words, you talk about measuring tools, the things that
you need to measure success. Have you heard of anything that has
been left out that should be considered when measuring success?
Because one of my concerns is—and I know we have a lot of great
treatment providers, but one of my greatest concerns is that young
people—I live in a district that has probably some of the highest
addictions in the country. And I talk to recovering addicts and a
lot of them will tell me they have gone to certain programs that
they found out from going through them. And by the way, it gets
out on the street which programs are, ‘‘real,’’ and which ones are
not. And they tell me that if they go to an unreal program, it can
do more harm than good, but yet our Federal dollars are being
spent.
So I am trying to figure out, you know, how do we make sure?
It may take time to kind of sift away the fair programs and get the
better ones out there so that people can have effective treatment.
And I am just trying to figure out how do we do that. Do you all
have any suggestions?
Dr. MCLELLAN. I can give you an example. I urge you to look at
it. It is precisely the kind of program that Dr. Jaffe is talking
about, and that is the State of Delaware. Now, it is a small State
and it is a very interconnected State, but they basically gave up.
They said, look, we don’t know what to tell you to do, but we know
what we want. And we are going to put criteria into play so that,
I will summarize very quickly, your treatment programs, when you

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00114

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

111
open your doors, you will get 80 percent of your contract last year.
However, if you meet the following criteria, you can make as much
as 120 percent of your contract last year.
And I will summarize and tell you that several programs weren’t
able to do it. They closed. New places came and they were able to
do it, and they are functioning now. And what the State is doing
is, they are adding criteria. They started with retention, because it
was the easiest to measure and all the programs agreed with it and
that knocked out several programs. Now they are moving toward
no new arrests. And if they are successful, they have a commitment
from the Justice Department to put additional money into the
treatment side, because it’s worth it, it’s worth it to the Justice Department, but only if they are able to make those—if they can buy
success, in other words.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Anybody else have something?
Now, you all heard the testimony of the other two witnesses earlier and you heard my questions with regard to jobs. And it seems
as if in most States people are placed in a position, particularly if
they get a conviction where they are locked out of so many jobs.
And I am just wondering, when you are trying to help somebody
move forward, you know, there are a lot of barbers in Baltimore.
I don’t know why a barber, why it is such a big deal. I have met
so many barbers who have had drug problems. Apparently, that is
one field that is still open. And the reason you get to know them
is because they talk about it.
Dr. MCLELLAN. They also teach barbering in jail.
Mr. CUMMINGS. And, see, that is good. I am glad you threw that
in.
But if that person came out of prison and there was a law that
said if you have, say, a drug conviction or you had some drug problems or whatever that you can’t be a barber, then that person is
precluded from making an income.
See, one of the problems that happens, and I don’t know why
people don’t think about this, people have fines and child support.
And I believe people ought to pay child support. I mean, there are
a lot of things that go against the person and basically forces them
back into jail or to addiction. In some kind of way, we have to grapple with that.
And Judge Wilson, I mean, in courts, I am sure you see that. A
guy comes in or lady comes in and says, look, I am doing the best
I can, but I can’t get a job. And if I don’t get a job, you are going
to send me back to jail. Or, you know, the reason I went back to
being involved in drugs was so that I could address making sure
I pay my fines, pay my child support, pay whatever I’ve got to pay.
And then, even more so, a job becomes very significant. Am I
right?
Ms. FREEMAN-WILSON. That is it exactly, Congressman
Cummings. And there are two things we look at.
One is, when we talk to people about how they develop their
court programs, we always encourage pre-plea programs because if
you have a pre-plea program and you successfully complete it, then
you are not saddled with the conviction.
But then as we move toward the discussion of reentry nationally,
then we have to look at how the laws in the States affect the abil-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00115

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

112
ity of the reentry participants to reenter society and become effective members of society. And so our organization along with a number of organizations, have embarked upon surveys of State laws,
not just to survey those laws, but to look at ways to encourage legislators to begin to move those laws away from being punitive. Because if, in fact, you expect a person to reenter society, become a
tax-paying citizen, how you saddle them with a conviction. Now
don’t get me wrong, there are some folks that need to have convictions on their records; we need that red flag on those records. But
in many instances, it is not appropriate in the case of those individuals who have convictions for possession of drugs, for other property-related crimes, one-time convictions, so that we need to look
at ways to have our laws in the States and to encourage the States
to develop those laws in a way that you don’t saddle the folks the
first time around so that they can come out and get jobs, and pay
support and pay taxes and all of those things that evidence them
as members of society who are productive.
Dr. JONES. I would like to add something on a much more kind
of grass-roots level.
One of the other hats I wear at Johns Hopkins is overseeing an
after-care program for heroin-dependent individuals who have completed a 3-day or 7-day detoxification. It is a 6-month NIDA-funded
after-care program, and we have four goals. And one of the main
goals is getting that person a job.
Now, a lot of our patients have criminal justice involvement. And
what we have found is that there are jobs available—perhaps not
the best job. I mean, a lot of them are in barber shops, doughnut
shops, working construction. But what we found is that these patients are particularly scared about even getting a job.
Some of them have even had a job. And working through that
you know, let us put a resume together. These people never had
a resume, and they are actually sitting down and filling out a questionnaire. We sit there with them and we say, can you come up
with two people who could vouch for you? And sometimes they will
remember, oh, yeah, I did that in the past and that was pretty
good, I have a good contact here.
And then the next step, after they’ve filled out their resume is
practicing interviewing skills, and we do it videotaped so they can
see what they look like, learn how to answer questions.
And then we take them out, and we have what we call job fairs
and we go to places that have hired our patients previously. So
what we are doing is we’re trying to build in small successes and
maximize opportunities of the likelihood for them getting a position. And we do; 39 percent of our patients are actually employed.
And a lot of them have criminal justice involvement.
So it is possible to overcome this, but it takes a tremendous
amount of hand-holding and working through the steps to give
them success.
Ms. FREEMAN-WILSON. Dr. Jones raises an important point and
that is to engage the participation of the business community in
this dialog. We can talk all the time about people needing jobs, but
there are people who give jobs and unless they believe that someone coming out of her program or someone coming out of a drug
court or out of a therapeutic community is a good employment risk,

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00116

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

113
and I would argue that they are better because you know, more
likely than not, that those folks are drug free, whereas those who
aren’t being tested, who aren’t in treatment, you don’t have that
guarantee.
But we have to engage the chambers of commerce. We have to
engage State government. We have to engage the other larger employers, be they hospitals, manufacturers, in that conversation
about employing not only the individuals who look good on a resume, but those whose resumes may be a little blemished.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I remember when I first started practicing law,
one of the things I wanted to do was to see exactly how these 12step programs worked. And I was just fascinated by the fact that
when I went, just to see how they worked, they had these people
sitting around talking about all their business. You know, it was
interesting.
Dr. MCLELLAN. It is called ‘‘sharing.’’
Mr. CUMMINGS. That sounds a little bit more clinical. And I just
wonder, how important is that to the things, to all your theories
of effective drug treatment? How important is sharing? I am just
curious.
Dr. MCLELLAN. It is not an opinion. There are studies to show
it. It is very effective and it makes so much sense. Environments
change people. So you have been to treatment programs, I can see
that, and you can see the kind of environment that is there and
you can accept that those people, while they’re there, are honest
and are industrious and have the values you want to see.
When they go back out to the environment that produced the
drug abuse to begin with, or in concert with their genetics produced
that, that is very likely to change them back, very likely unless
they are involved on a regular basis. This is what they call ‘‘aftercare.’’
This is the continuing care that Dr. Volkow talked about; everybody here has talked about it. One of the best because it is cheap.
Actually, it is free. It is everywhere, it’s all the time. It is AA, NA,
these 12-step programs. The fact is, only about a quarter of the
people that are referred to them actually will go ahead and really
lock up and then you have a guarantee. Those people do very well.
We need alternatives and we need new kinds of things for people
that don’t want to do that.
Ms. MARTENS. Congressman Cummings, I want to use one of our
programs in your district as an example to you.
In all of your questions, you were asking, it is one thing for us
to get a mom clean and sober. It is another thing, and I know you
can appreciate this in Baltimore, a mom who reads at a third grade
level, does math at a second grade level. She has been getting high
since she was in middle school because her mom did it and her
grandma did it and her dad has been locked up forever. Kid has
so many problems.
We’ve got Hemmett Kennedy Kreger. So we’re working on her
GED while she’s in treatment, case managing her to figure our
what kind of skill set she would like to develop.
As Dr. Jones was saying, it’s the little things. How to go to the
office downtown and get your child’s immunization record, that
sounds easy to us; that can cause mom to think, I am going to get

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00117

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

114
high because I can’t do that. These little things that we take for
granted in our life have to be case managed throughout this entire
treatment process. The mayor and I are working now because there
are few places for us to put mom, in a house that does not trigger
her addiction. She remembers the noise on North Avenue, she remembers the smell. She remembers what you look like, and you
may be a trigger for her addiction.
If you don’t treat the client holistically, a mom may not maintain
her recovery, I think that is one of the reasons that therapeutic
communities have been so successful because it involves every part
of the client’s life. Mom’s relationship with her boyfriend may be
a trigger for her addiction, so she can’t go back into that neighborhood or live with her family. And if we don’t look at the whole picture and find jobs, education, housing, and as Dr. McLellan was
saying, the 12-step support system, you can’t leave a Second Genesis program without having a sponsor in the community and already knowing where your meetings are going to be. Where is a
meeting you can take your kids?
These may sound like really simple problems, but they are huge
for a mom that may be in a fourth or fifth generation of the addiction cycle.
Mr. CUMMINGS. That is interesting. In Baltimore, there is an entire community of recovering addicts. They invited me to speak at
something. I thought it was going to be like 30 people. It was like
700. And I realized that and I guess it is like another family.
So going back to what you were saying, Dr. McLellan, I guess it
is a shifting. You shift over to this family where you are doing the
12 steps and you make new relationships and everybody is trying
to, they are trying to get to recovery or trying to be recovered.
On the other hand, if they shift back into that old community,
then again, as you were saying, something pulls them back in. And
it could be one incident, because I remember one time I did a little
tour, and there was a woman in Baltimore who had been off of heroin for 15 years. For 15 years. Had a great job, doing well. Had one
incident that happened in the family, and she was back on. And
it was incredible to me. And she said she stopped going to the 12step programs.
So I think that we as a committee have to look at we are talking
about generation after generation after generation. And it is so
costly to try to treat the kids and treat everybody that, at some
point, I think that is why we are so concerned about effective treatment, because like you said, this doesn’t only affect the client, it
affects everybody in their vicinity, which really says a lot.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your patience.
Mr. SOUDER. I want to raise a point and see if anybody has any
comment about this, because one of the most explosive issues we
deal with here, the way we are playing it through, is the faithbased questions. Yet what becomes pretty clear to me is that to expand this program we need political support beyond a more traditional liberal Democratic community. If you don’t have the conservative faith-based community with it, there isn’t enough political
support.
In Indiana, as Judge Wilson knows full well, it gets really nasty
in political campaigns if you take a position that you ought to give

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00118

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

115
more flexibility for people who come out of prison and then one of
them gets arrested. Right now, we have a situation where an Indianapolis news media has stated that 10 percent of the people at the
Bureau of Motor Vehicles in Indianapolis are former convicts. Well,
that was before they went to work there. There are other problems
since they have gone to work there. That means, in fact, that
they’ve hired people in that position, but politically, it is going to
be a debatable issue this fall because that is a high number and
it’s lining a lot of Federal jobs.
There are barriers because it is so politically explosive. There is
a big law-and-order type of mentality with it. And unless there is
a way of including in jobs that part of the reason is that we have
had 16 years of Democratic Governors, which I don’t view as great,
in Indiana. But they have been getting As on the score cards on
faith-based because they came to realize, particularly in the minority community, that if they don’t match it with suburban churches
as well, we weren’t going to get the support for the follow-through.
Because an employer may be making, if he is guaranteed there is
drug testing, the type of decision that you referred to, which is, he
knows he has a clean employee.
But there are other risks. For example, a number of my friends
who have hired people have had reoccurring problems because not
everybody is rehabbed all the way. One of our major volunteer programs in Fort Wayne for people coming out of prison went broke
because one of the people relapsed and stole everything they had.
They stole their computers, stole a number of other things. They
were too marginal. And they came back, a number of those people,
not because they viewed it as a business, per se, but because they
are faith motivated and felt they had a motivation.
And unless we can figure out how we are going to make some
coalitioning between the Prison Fellowship and conservative Christian people to back up the kind of the institutional support from
the government, it is going to be very hard to figure out how we
are going to provide this comprehensive follow-through in jobs and
the political support for adequate dollars. Because when we start
to split these things off, it is ironic that we have these political divisions.
And our distinguished judge and attorney general of Indiana
knows what we are talking about, because we have had some very
tough debates in Indiana, and we continue to have them on this
very subject. That makes it really dicey when any politician walks
out there and says, we need to look for housing, we need to provide
for job employment, we need to open up the opportunities. And
then there is something that occurs or there is a backlash or somebody says, what do I have to do, commit a crime to get a job? And
politically, we have to figure out how we’re going to work this kind
of stuff through, because we have put more money into treatment,
but it isn’t at the levels where we need.
And partly this is underneath it, particularly when you look at
the after-care.
Dr. JAFFE. One of the major conclusions of our panel was that
if you want to get broadened public support for the resources that
you need to provide good treatment for those who need it, the public has to believe that treatment is effective.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00119

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

116
Now, it’s not ever going to be perfect. There is always somebody
who is going to relapse even after 15 years. If 99 percent of people
who leave prison don’t do anything, somebody will take a job and
steal from his employer. That is a virtual guarantee.
But if people are convinced that the people who pay for treatment are looking at the programs and making certain that they are
all competent and that the programs that aren’t effective are being
eliminated, or at least they are not being funded with the taxpayers’ dollars, they are going to be more willing to come up with
those resources.
So what we saw was that evaluation and rewarding the effective
programs is a way to build public support as this kind of treatment
competes for resources against other priorities in the public sphere.
There is not enough money for everything that needs to be done,
and treatment needs to compete, we know that. One of the ways
it can compete more effectively is to assure decisionmakers that all
the programs are at least at some minimum standard of competence.
Mr. SOUDER. It is in the job’s follow-through question, too, that
part of the problem here is. If we took the targeted jobs credit and
said that in the targeted jobs credit it should be those who are
highest risk in the society for being unemployed, and I’ll bet if we
look at that, that we would find a fair percentage of those people
have been through a drug treatment program.
So, theoretically, this could be turned on us saying the people
getting the targeted jobs are the people who have committed a
crime when we have high unemployment. What I am trying to get
at is, unless we have a broader base of support that understands
the concept behind this, both from the risk of crime to society, but
also an obligation and an understanding that if these people can
get rehabbed, they are going to be better in their family lives.
But politically we have a problem here, particularly, for example,
we put in the targeted jobs credit that the people who have been
arrested should go to the front of the line because they are the
hardest to employ.
Ms. FREEMAN-WILSON. Congressman Souder, I would say the
way to transcend that goal is to really convince the people who you
referred to of the equal opportunity nature of this problem. It
doesn’t matter whether you are conservative or liberal, it doesn’t
matter where you live, it doesn’t matter what you look like. Congressman Davis talked about it earlier when he said not only were
they having problems in Chicago, but I know because we’ve worked
with the drug courts in King County, IL. There is a heroin epidemic in the suburbs. So if we can get those groups, the church
groups both in the cities and in the suburbs to take that message
to the public—and quite frankly, some already know because it is
happening in their homes—then I think we will have transcended
that political albatross or potential political albatross.
Mr. SOUDER. Often it is, bluntly, put quieter in the suburbs because to go and buy the stuff in the lower-income neighborhoods
and the crime and the related violence that comes from it is in the
lower-income neighborhoods and often the parents in the suburbs
are too busy to be in denial and don’t want to be embarrassed. And

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00120

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

117
yet, it is kind of an interesting thing because trying to get that
public is a whole other task we face. Any other closing comments?
Dr. MCLELLAN. I don’t think anybody here is saying fund more
of what we have. Take the opportunity to use measurement and to
take the things that you know you want to buy and link those two
together, and then I think that is going to knock the political albatross off your neck.
Ms. MARTENS. I think, Congressman Souder, when you asked
about the faith-based communities, what we have used effectively
is the potential of collaboration, because there is a great deal of
stigma involved, as Judge Wilson was saying. To begin to get the
faith-based community involved, we do mentoring programs with
them, and we ask them to hold NA and AA meetings in their
churches. They have parties in our women’s and children’s programs, and that begins to invest them in the process that, as Dr.
Jaffe was saying, this is an equal opportunity destroyer. It does not
matter who you are.
Especially with our programs in Baltimore, we are effectively
using the faith-based community to be our partners. They don’t
want to be doing drug treatment. There is really a myth that, you
know, the pastor in your church will be able to heal you. Wouldn’t
it be great if it were that easy?
Mr. SOUDER. Well, I want to make sure that we have in the
record it is an equal opportunity, in other words, in the sense of
people using drugs. But there is no question that the violence is
not equally spread, that the dealing is not equally spread, that the
impact on employment in groups that are already at high risk that
have added to it, that when we are doing a returning offenders program in Allen County, the bulk of them are going into the lowest
income, poorest housing areas where there aren’t jobs and where
the people are moving out of some of the school systems because
drugs are in every school, as evidenced in our highest-income
school in the county that has probably the biggest drug-dealing
problem but there are more students.
They don’t have the shootings in the school. There is, for whatever reasons, probably a higher percentage of parental involvement
in the school, more income, different types of things. And I mean
I can go into an urban school in Fort Wayne and say, how many
have seen a shooting. I will see 75 percent—a shooting other than
hunting for a deer—75 percent will say ‘‘yes.’’ I can go into Homestead or Carroll or other schools that are in the suburbs or rural
school and get none to 10 percent.
There is a difference in the impact of it, even though it is an
equal opportunity destroyer, and most drug users in America are
White, just like everything else. But it has a disproportionate impact because the families may not have the health insurance, may
not have the support group around them, may not have the connection to get a job. So there is disproportionate negative impact,
which is what we at the Federal Government have to be looking
at.
One last question, why, if the programs aren’t effective, hasn’t
the market in health insurance or the people that pay the insurance made some adjustment? In other words, why would they want
to pay two or three times to send somebody through a program if

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00121

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

118
a program that lasted just a little bit longer would have had more
success? Why hasn’t the market adjusted?
Ms. MARTENS. The problem is so big, Congressman Souder. I will
use our District of Columbia facility as an example for you. All of
our clients come from CSOSA. They are federally mandated by
CSOSA. CSOSA is putting our clients through a 28-day program.
I have a man right now who is 82 years old and has been shooting
heroin since he was 13 and he is in a 28-day program. I couldn’t
change one of my bad behaviors in 28 days, much less shooting
heroin in my neck since I was 13.
Mr. SOUDER. If this was a private sector, you have private people.
Ms. MARTENS. Very few are private pay.
Mr. SOUDER. Are most people in drug treatment in private pay?
Ms. MARTENS. No. If you had a problem, Congressman, you know
Father Martin’s Ashley in Havre de Grace would probably be a
very effective program.
Mr. SOUDER. I didn’t understand. Did you say 80 percent at this
point is public pay?
Dr. JAFFE. Thirty-eight percent, I think, in 1997. It is in our report. Thirty-eight percent, I think, is private sector and about 62
percent is now public sector with the bulk of that coming from the
Federal Government directly or indirectly.
Ms. MARTENS. Block grant.
Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much for your testimony today. It
has been very important as we move through drug treatment and
appreciate your cooperation. With that, the subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.].
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00122

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

119

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00123

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

120

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00124

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

121

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00125

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

122

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00126

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

123

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00127

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

124

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00128

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

125

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00129

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

126

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00130

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

127

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00131

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

128

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00132

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

129

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00133

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

130

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00134

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

131

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00135

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

132

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00136

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

133

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00137

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

134

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00138

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

135

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00139

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

136

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00140

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

137

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00141

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

138

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00142

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

139

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00143

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

140

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00144

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

141

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00145

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

142

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00146

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

143

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00147

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

144

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00148

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

145

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00149

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

146

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00150

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

147

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00151

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

148

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00152

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

149

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00153

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

150

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00154

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

151

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00155

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

152

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00156

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

153

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00157

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

154

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00158

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

155

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00159

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

156

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00160

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

157

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00161

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

158

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00162

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1

159

Æ

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:31 Dec 03, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00163

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6011

D:\DOCS\96744.TXT

HGOVREF1

PsN: HGOVREF1